Petrak v Griffith University

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Petrak v Griffith University and Ors [2018] QCAT 356

PARTIES:

MELISSA JANE PETRAK
(applicant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY
(first respondent)
v
CAROL-JOY PATRICK
(second respondent)
v
KIERAN TRANTER

(third respondent)

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

ADL092-16

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Ann Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

1.   The Application of the Respondents to strike out the Application, filed 29 November 2017, is dismissed, except as set out in Order 2 below.

2.   Any claim by the Applicant based upon indirect discrimination is dismissed.

3.   The Applicant’s claim is limited to the matters set out in this Decision, subject to a right to seek leave to amend the claim upon notice to the Respondents.

4.   The matter is to be mentioned at a Directions Hearing on a date to be advised.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION
PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT APPLICATION – Where complaint of discrimination because of impairment, family responsibilities, political beliefs. Complaint of victimisation – hearing to have Applicant describe her claims -claims not misconceived or lacking in substance.

Ss10, 130 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld);
S47 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. The Respondents have applied to strike out the Applicant’s claims pursuant to s47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) on the basis that the claims are misconceived or lacking in substance. In particular, it is asserted that the application does not identify “less favourable treatment” under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld); that there is no link between the actions of the Respondents and the Applicant’s protected attribute and that there is no identified detriment.

2. The Applicant filed a Response to the Application.  The Applicant’s written claims and her response to the application are very difficult to understand.

3. At relevant times the Applicant was an enrolled student at the First Applicant, undertaking studies in the Arts Faculty and the Faculty of Law.

4. In order to clarify the nature of the Applicant’s claims, especially in view of the fact that the Applicant is said to suffer from a cognitive impairment, I ordered that the parties attend a hearing where the Applicant would be asked to disclose on the record:

   (i)      the attribute in question;

   (ii)      how the Applicant was treated by the Respondents;

   (iii)     why the treatment was said to be because of her attribute;

   (iv)     how the treatment was less favourable than the treatment of other people in the same or similar circumstances who do not have the attribute;

   (v)     if she has been asked to comply with a requirement that she has been unable to meet, but other people without the attribute can meet.  If so, what is the requirement and why is it unreasonable.

   (vi)     what order the Applicant is seeking.

   (vii)   why the Applicant’s claims…