St Joseph's Hospital Ltd v Correy (EOD)

St Joseph's Hospital Limited sought leave to appeal from a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal which held that the Respondent was liable to pay the Appellant compensation for discrimination on the ground of carer's responsibilities. The Tribunal's decision was based on its finding that the Respondent had failed to discharge the onus of proving that the dismissal of the Appellant was not on the ground of carer's responsibilities. The Respondent contended that the Tribunal had misapplied the onus of proof and erred in failing to consider the appropriate standard of proof. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was required to decide whether the appeal should be allowed to extend to the merits and, if so, what directions should be given to the Tribunal for the reconsideration of the victimisation complaint. The Court of Appeal held that the appeal should be allowed to extend to the merits, but only on the issue of whether the test in section 49T(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 had been satisfied. The Court found that the Tribunal had erred in its application of the onus of proof and in failing to consider the appropriate standard of proof. The Court held that the appropriate standard of proof in discrimination cases is the balance of probabilities and that the onus of proof rests on the Respondent to prove that the dismissal was not on the ground of carer's responsibilities. The Court set aside the Tribunal's decision and remitted the victimisation complaint to the Tribunal for reconsideration in accordance with the Court's directions. The Court held that the issue for determination was whether the necessary causal connection existed between any of the matters in section 50(1)(a) to (d) and the detriment suffered by the Appellant. The Court directed that the issue should be determined in accordance with the Appeal Panel's decision on the applicability of Jones v Dunkel and R v Weissensteiner. The Court held that if the Tribunal found that the relevant connection existed, it should then decide, on the basis of the existing evidence, whether the Appellant was entitled to a remedy. The Court further set aside the Tribunal's order that the Respondent pay the Appellant compensation and substituted a new order that the complaint of discrimination on the ground of responsibilities as a carer was dismissed.