Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd

CITATION:	Prakash -v- Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 73
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity
APPLICANT:	Ram Prakash
RESPONDENT:	Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER:	65 of 1998
HEARING DATES:	07/15/1999
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:
DATE OF DECISION:	20 September 1999
BEFORE:	N Rees - Judicial Member K Edwards - Member L Lau - Member
PRIMARY LEGISLATION:	Anti-Discrimnation Act 1977
APPLICATION:	Race Discrimination - Goods and Services -
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Application under S111(1) of Anti Discrimination Act for dismissal of complaint
REPRESENTATION:	Applicant: In person Respondent: P Curry, agent
ORDERS:	1. Complaint dismissed

Reasons for Decision

Introduction

1 In this case the Complainant, Mr Ram Prakash, alleges that he has suffered racial discrimination at the hands of the Respondent, Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited (trading as Robert R Andrew).

2 The matter was heard by the Tribunal in Sydney on 15 July 1999. The Complainant was not legally represented and appeared in person. The Respondent company was not legally represented and Mr Paul Curry, a former employee of the Respondent, appeared before the Tribunal, purportedly as the agent of the Respondent. In view of the decision of the Tribunal, and the order made in this case, it is not necessary, in our opinion, to conclusively determine the issue of Mr Curry’s capacity to represent the Respondent in this matter. It is an issue, however, to which the Tribunal turned its mind even though no objection to Mr Curry’s capacity to represent the Respondent was raised by the Complainant. The matter is discussed in more detail at paragraphs 19-26.

3 At the conclusion of the evidence for the Complainant, and after hearing argument from both parties, the Tribunal determined that the complaint was both “misconceived” and “lacking in substance”. Accordingly, acting pursuant to s111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (“the Act”), the Tribunal dismissed the complaint.

4 We set out below the history of this complaint, the procedure followed by the Tribunal at the hearing, the evidence presented to the Tribunal and the reasons for our decision.

History of the Complaint

5 This history is drawn from the report of the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (“the ADB”) which was admitted into evidence at the hearing on 15 July 1999 with the consent of both parties.

6 On 4 December 1996 the ADB received a letter from the Complainant complaining about the behaviour of Mr Paul Curry on 15 November 1996. In this letter the Complainant did not specifically identify the grounds upon which he was complaining (e.g. race discrimination), he did not specifically refer to an area of activity about which he was complaining (e.g. the provision of accommodation) and he did not identify any remedy he sought. It is clear, however, from the authorities that a complaint need not contain these specific details in order to be a valid complaint within the meaning of the Act. As is pointed out in Ronalds, Discrimination Law and Practice (1998, Sydney : The Federation Press) at p 165 “all that is required is…