Stella v Griffith University - [2025] QCAT 84

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Stella v Griffith University & Anor [2025] QCAT 84

PARTIES:

RICHARD JOSEPH STELLA

(applicant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

(First respondent)

CHRISTOPHER FLEMING

(Second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL074-24

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

11 March 2025

HEARING DATE:

28 February 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

1. The application to join Andreas Chai to the proceeding is allowed.

2. The application for miscellaneous matters (joinder; directions to provide information) filed by the applicant on 28 August 2024 is otherwise dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JOINDER OF CAUSES OF ACTION AND OF PARTIES – application of s 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) – whether other academics involved in the decision to exclude the applicant from the symposium should be joined – whether signatories to Conduct Complaint made against the applicant should be joined – whether notices to produce should be issued

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 37, s 177

Human Rights Act 2019 (Qld), s 15, s 21, s 58
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 42, s 62, s 63

Coral Homes (Qld) Pty Ltd v Queensland Building Services Authority [2012] QCATA 241

Health Profession Board of Australia v GA [2014] QCAT 216

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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

On 28 August 2024 the applicant made an application for miscellaneous matters seeking:
(a)to join Professor Chai and Associate Professor Bodle to the proceedings;
(b)that any signatories to the complaint about the applicant’s conduct lodged with the University on 22 August 2022 who were employees at any time between 7 August and 11 October 2022 be joined;
(c)that Griffith University produce the names and addresses for service of any employees described in (ii) above; and
(d)that Griffith University produce the names and contact details of the employees of the Australian National University (‘ANU’) and Charles Darwin University (‘CDU’) who were party to the decisions relevant to ‘incident D’.
On 28 October 2024, relying also on their reply to the applicant’s statement of contentions, the respondents filed submissions opposing the application.
I will deal with the application in two parts: for joinder and for certain information to be produced by the first respondent.
Background
The substantive proceedings concern a Complaint of discrimination made by the applicant against the respondents based on the attributes of race and political belief or activity in the area of education. At the time the Complaint was made the applicant was a postgraduate student at the School of Government and International Relations within the Griffith Business School at Griffith University.
The Complaint arose in this way.
A symposium, the first Annual National HDR and ECR Symposium on Economic Development and Self Determination for Indigenous Australians (‘the symposium’) was to be held on 27and 28…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Stella v Griffith University

Details

AGLC: Stella v Griffith University [2025] QCAT 84
Case: [2025] QCAT 84
Decision Date: 11 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Stella v Griffith University involves the applicant, Stella, who has filed a complaint against Griffith University and other respondents, alleging discrimination based on race and political belief or activity in the area of education. Stella, a postgraduate student at the Griffith Business School, was excluded from participating in a symposium organised by the university and others. Stella contends that the exclusion was influenced by a Conduct Complaint related to her Twitter posts, which she argues were politically motivated and targeted due to her non-Indigenous status. The university denies these allegations, stating that Stella's exclusion was due to her not meeting the symposium's criteria. The Queensland Human Rights Commission accepted Stella's complaint as indicating a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act on the basis of political belief or activity, but not race, and identified potential limitations of human rights under the Human Rights Act.

The legal issues before the court include whether other academics involved in the decision to exclude Stella from the symposium should be joined as parties to the proceedings and whether the signatories to the Conduct Complaint should be joined. Additionally, the court considered whether notices to produce should be issued to the respondents to compel them to provide certain information. The application was examined under section 42 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009, which governs the joinder of causes of action and parties in civil proceedings. The court also needed to determine if the information sought by Stella was necessary and relevant to her case.

The court allowed the application to join Andreas Chai to the proceedings but dismissed the application for joinder of other parties and the directions to provide information. The reasoning behind this decision was that while the inclusion of Andreas Chai was necessary, the other parties and the requested information were not essential to the resolution of the core issues in the case. The court emphasised that the proceedings should be efficient and not unduly prolonged by unnecessary parties or information. The orders reflect this decision, allowing the joinder of Andreas Chai but dismissing the broader application for joinder and information.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application to join Andreas Chai to the proceeding is allowed.

2. The application for miscellaneous matters (joinder; directions to provide information) filed by the applicant on 28 August 2024 is otherwise dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

I will deal with the application in two parts: for joinder and for certain information to be produced by the first respondent. Background The substantive proceedings concern a Complaint of discrimination made by the applicant against the respondents based on the attributes of race and political belief or activity in the area of education. At the time the Complaint was made the applicant was a postgraduate student at the School of Government and International Relations within the Griffith Business School at Griffith University. The Complaint arose in this way. A symposium, the first Annual National HDR and ECR Symposium on Economic Development and Self Determination for Indigenous Australians (‘the symposium’) was to be held on 27and 28 October 2022 at Griffith University. The symposium was jointly organised by the Griffith Business School, the Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research at the Australian National University and the Asia College of Business & Law at Charles Darwin University. There was a call for papers for presentation at the symposium. The applicant submitted an extract for consideration by the conference organising committee. The applicant’s extract was not accepted and he did not present at the symposium. The applicant alleges the refusal to accept his abstract was triggered by a Conduct Complaint made against him by three other persons (who were students and/or employees of the University) about the content of the applicant’s Twitter posts. The Twitter posts were essentially responses made by the applicant to posts by politicians and academics, some of which related to First Nations people and the proposed constitutional amendments relating to The Voice. The applicant complains of five incidents which he says contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act1991 (Qld) (‘AD Act’)and the Human Rights Act2019 (Qld) (‘HR Act’). In summary, the applicant alleges that because of his political views he was treated less favourably, including by being excluded from the symposium. The applicant also alleges that because the Conduct Complaint was made by Indigenous students or employees against a non-Indigenous person he was treated less favourably. The applicant described his political beliefs as ‘centre-right’ and, for the purposes of his Complaint, his race as ‘non-Indigenous’. The respondents deny the allegations. They say the reason the applicant was not invited to participate in the symposium was because he did not meet the criteria. Further, that the criteria were not changed or implemented purposely to exclude the applicant’s participation. The Queensland Human Rights Commission (‘QHRC’) accepted the complaint as one that indicated an alleged contravention of the AD Act on the basis of the protected attribute of political belief or activity, but not race. The QHRC also identified allegations of limitations of the following human rights under the HR Act:(a)right to recognition and equality before the law: s 15; and(b)right to freedom of expression: s 21.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.