TA v Chadi - [2020] QCAT 448

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

TA v Chadi [2020] QCAT 448

PARTIES: TA

(applicant)

v

ADAM CHADI

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL059-19

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

24 November 2020

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Gordon

ORDERS:
1.   The complaint referred to the tribunal is dismissed.

2.   All other applications are refused, except that the application for punishment for a contempt remains on the file.

CATCHWORDS:
HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – OTHER MATTERS – where complainant alleges that he was victimised having made a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – how causation should be tested – whether the complaint is made out

COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – where there is an application for punishment for a contempt – where the application was not served on the respondent personally – what action can be taken by a non-judicial member of the tribunal who becomes aware of the application

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 129, s 130, s 131,
s 204
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 219
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 99

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Chapter 20 Part 7

McCauley v Club Resort Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QCAT 243

Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1
Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925
TT and Ors v Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District and Ors [2013] QCAT 48

Wheeler v Rockhampton Regional Council [2011] QCAT 115

REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:  Self-represented

Respondent:  Self-represented

APPEARANCES: 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

This is a complaint by TA that he was victimised by Adam Chadi contrary to section 129 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).
In such complaints the word ‘victimise’ is used in a strict legal sense and not used colloquially. Victimisation is defined in section 130 of the Act and it is helpful to set it out in full, together with section 131:
130 Meaning of victimisation
(1) Victimisation happens if a person (the respondent) does an act, or threatens to do an act, to the detriment of another person (the complainant)—
(a) because the complainant, or a person associated with, or related to, the complainant—
(i) refused to do an act that would amount to a contravention of the Act; or
(ii) in good faith, alleged, or intends to allege that a person committed an act that would amount to a contravention of the Act; or
(iii) is, has been, or intends to be, involved in a proceeding under the Act against any person; or
(b) because the respondent believes that the complainant, or a person associated with, or related to, the complainant is doing, has done, or intends to do one of the things mentioned in paragraph (a)(i), (ii)…

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 TA v Chadi

Details

AGLC: TA v Chadi [2020] QCAT 448
Case: [2020] QCAT 448
Decision Date: 24 November 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of TA v Chadi, the complainant, TA, alleged that he had been victimised after making a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The respondent, Chadi, was accused of engaging in discriminatory conduct. The case was brought before the tribunal to determine whether the complaint was substantiated and to address the legal issues surrounding the causation of the alleged victimisation. The court was tasked with interpreting how causation should be tested in this context and whether the complainant had successfully made out his case.

The legal issues central to this case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). Specifically, the tribunal had to consider the grounds of discrimination and the criteria for establishing a causal link between the complaint made and the subsequent victimisation. Additionally, the tribunal examined the procedure for dealing with an application for punishment for contempt where the application was not served on the respondent personally. The tribunal also needed to address what action a non-judicial member of the tribunal could take upon becoming aware of such an application.

The tribunal dismissed the complaint referred to it, concluding that TA had not established a causal link between his complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act and the subsequent victimisation he alleged. The tribunal found that the evidence did not sufficiently support the claim that Chadi's actions were discriminatory or retaliatory. Additionally, the tribunal refused all other applications, except for the application for punishment for a contempt, which remained on the tribunal's file. The tribunal's reasoning focused on the lack of sufficient evidence to substantiate the claim of victimisation and the procedural issues related to the application for contempt. The tribunal concluded that the application for punishment for a contempt remained viable for future consideration, while the primary complaint was dismissed.

The final orders of the tribunal were to dismiss the complaint referred to it and to refuse all other applications except for the application for punishment for a contempt, which remained on the tribunal's file. The tribunal's decision underscored the importance of robust evidence in establishing claims of victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act and highlighted the procedural considerations in dealing with contempt applications.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The complaint referred to the tribunal is dismissed.

2. All other applications are refused, except that the application for punishment for a contempt remains on the file.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.

CITATION:	TA v Chadi [2020] QCAT 448
PARTIES:	TA
(applicant)
v
ADAM CHADI
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	ADL059-19
MATTER TYPE:	Anti-discrimination matters
DELIVERED ON:	24 November 2020
HEARING DATE:	On the papers
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Member Gordon
ORDERS:	1. The complaint referred to the tribunal is dismissed. 2. All other applications are refused, except that the application for punishment for a contempt remains on the file.
CATCHWORDS:	HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – OTHER MATTERS – where complainant alleges that he was victimised having made a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – how causation should be tested – whether the complaint is made out COURTS AND JUDGES – CONTEMPT – PROCEDURE AND EVIDENCE – JURISDICTION AND GENERALLY – where there is an application for punishment for a contempt – where the application was not served on the respondent personally – what action can be taken by a non-judicial member of the tribunal who becomes aware of the application Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 129, s 130, s 131, s 204 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) s 219 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Rules 2009 (Qld) r 99 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) Chapter 20 Part 7 McCauley v Club Resort Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] QCAT 243 Medlin v State Government Insurance Commission (1995) 182 CLR 1 Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925 TT and Ors v Lutheran Church of Australia Queensland District and Ors [2013] QCAT 48 Wheeler v Rockhampton Regional Council [2011] QCAT 115
REPRESENTATION: Applicant: Self-represented Respondent: Self-represented APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)