Toodayan v Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland

The case of Toodayan v Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland involved several applicants who were employed as interns at the Princess Alexandra Hospital. They lodged complaints of alleged discrimination with the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland (ADCQ) under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The ADCQ rejected the complaints on the grounds that they were misconceived or lacking in substance, pursuant to section 139(b) of the Act. The applicants sought judicial review of the ADCQ's decisions to reject their complaints, challenging whether the ADCQ was correct to dismiss them under section 139(b).

The central legal issue in the case was whether the ADCQ was required to consider evidence that might be found later, beyond what was presented at the time of the complaint. The applicants argued that the ADCQ had to proceed on the basis that the evidence they presented would be established and also consider whether they had no prospect of establishing evidence that might be found later. The court rejected this argument, holding that it would require the ADCQ to engage in a hypothetical exercise, which would be inconsistent with forming a reasonable opinion based on the evidence presented at the time of the complaint.

The court found that section 139 of the Act refers to the complaint as a set of allegations and supporting material which is fixed in time. It does not include evidence that is not known at the time of the complaint. If it were otherwise, no complaint could be rejected because it is always possible to imagine circumstances which might establish discrimination. Consequently, the court held that the ADCQ was correct in rejecting the complaints pursuant to section 139(b). However, the court noted that there was a question about whether the complaints were within time, which had yet to be considered.

The orders made by the court were that the applications in BS509/17 and BS510/17 were dismissed, and the decisions of the ADCQ in BS1698/17 and BS1700/17 were set aside. The applicants were directed to provide minutes of order within 10 days, and the court would hear from the parties on the appropriate form of orders including costs.