Tully v McIntyre

In this appeal, Tully, the appellant, sought to challenge a decision made by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal in Queensland, which had found that McIntyre, the respondent, had not acted in a discriminatory manner under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. The crux of the dispute centred around whether McIntyre's comments, made when no job was available, constituted a discriminatory act under the Act. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, and subsequently, the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues the Court of Appeal needed to address were whether the evidence presented could substantiate a contravention of section 14(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 and if the tribunal had correctly assessed the damages awarded. Specifically, the court had to determine if the tribunal erred in failing to separate the components of the global damages award, whether the tribunal was required to provide proper reasons and specify how the damages were composed, and if there was restraint in awarding damages for distress caused by the cross-examination. Furthermore, the court had to assess whether there was a proper basis for awarding damages for the loss of the chance of employment.

The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not support a contravention of section 14(1) of the Act, as the decision to not create a job for the appellant was not made "in deciding who should be offered work". Consequently, no prohibited act of discrimination was identified. Regarding the damages, the court concluded that the tribunal's failure to separate the components of the global damages award constituted a legal error. It was also determined that the tribunal needed to give proper reasons and specify how the damages were composed. Additionally, the court emphasised the need for restraint in awarding damages for distress caused by cross-examination, and questioned the basis for awarding damages for the loss of the chance of employment. Based on these findings, the appeal was allowed, the Supreme Court's order was set aside, and the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal's orders were also set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the proceedings in the Supreme Court.