Soelberg (Formerly Van Droffelaar) and Commissioner Of Police

Ms Soelberg, formerly Van Droffelaar, brought an action against the Commissioner of Police in the State Administrative Tribunal, alleging discrimination on the grounds of sex, pregnancy, and family responsibility, as well as victimisation. The court was tasked with determining whether these allegations were substantiated based on the evidence presented.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the actions of the respondents constituted discrimination or victimisation under the relevant legislation, and whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to substantiate these claims. The court needed to assess the credibility of the applicant’s evidence and the respondent’s explanations, and determine whether there was a causative link between the alleged discriminatory actions and the applicant's adverse treatment.

The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate the claims of discrimination or victimisation. It concluded that the applicant's credibility was undermined by inconsistencies in her evidence and that there was no causative link between the alleged discriminatory actions and the treatment she received. The court also determined that the referrals of complaints did not amount to victimisation and that the jurisdictional issues raised were without merit. As a result, the allegations were dismissed.

The court ordered that if the parties could not agree on costs by 6 February 2009, the matter would proceed to a hearing for oral submissions, with a maximum of 30 minutes allotted for each party. If such a hearing was not necessary, the court would notify the parties by 19 February 2009 of its decision on ordering costs under section 88 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).