Shahid v The Australasian College of Dermatologists

In the case of Shahid v The Australasian College of Dermatologists, the applicant, a qualified medical practitioner, sought to challenge the selection processes of the respondent, The Australasian College of Dermatologists, in relation to its trainee registrar program in dermatology. The applicant alleged that she was unfairly excluded from the program on the basis of her gender and that the respondent's selection processes were unfair, unreasonable, and discriminatory. The court was required to determine whether the respondent was a trading corporation for the purposes of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA) and whether the respondent's selection processes contravened the TPA and the Fair Trading Act 2010 (WA) (FTA).

The court found that the respondent was not a trading corporation for the purposes of the TPA and FTA, as its principal activities were not of a trading or commercial character. The court held that the evidence relied upon by the applicant did not establish that the respondent was a trading corporation, as it did not earn significant income from its activities and did not have a monopoly on training dermatologists within Australia. The court also held that the respondent's selection processes did not contravene the TPA and FTA, as they were not unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory. The court found that the selection processes were based on merit and that the applicant had not been unfairly excluded from the program on the basis of her gender.

The court dismissed the applicant's claims and ordered that the application be dismissed, with costs reserved. The court found that there was no basis upon which an order could be made for the applicant's claim and that the applicant's claims must be dismissed. The court held that the applicant's case drew inferences from the application of the principles in Jones v Dunkel and other cases, but that these principles did not apply to the respondent's selection processes. The court also found that the respondent's selection processes were not unfair, unreasonable, or discriminatory, and that the applicant had not been unfairly excluded from the program on the basis of her gender.