Fonua v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd & Ors [1999] NSWADT 59

Fonua v The Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd & Ors [1999] NSWADT 59

The complaints were dismissed because the Complainant was not a contract worker under Section 10, the evidence did not establish any agreement by the First Respondent to pay interpreter fees, the refusal to pay and the treatment at the Human Resources counter were justified and not shown to be less favourable treatment on the ground of race, any detriment was not caused by earlier proceedings, and therefore the victimisation and aiding and abetting allegations also failed. The complaints were misconceived and lacking in substance under Section 111(1), warranting dismissal and an order for costs under Section 111(2).

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Complaint Concerning Aiding and Abetting, Race Discrimination in Employment, and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter; Inquiry Following Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board
Outcome
Complaints dismissed; costs awarded to each Respondent.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'contract Worker Discrimination' 'employment Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'aiding and Abetting Unlawful Conduct' 'dismissal of Misconceived or Lacking in Substance Complaints' 'costs of Inquiry']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'costs'] ['race Discrimination' 'contract Worker Discrimination' 'employment Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'aiding and Abetting Unlawful Conduct' 'dismissal of Misconceived or Lacking in Substance Complaints' 'costs of Inquiry']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity Complaint Concerning Aiding and Abetting, Race Discrimination in Employment, and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter; Inquiry Following Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Complainant was a contract worker within Section 4 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 so as to support a claim under Section 10.' 'Whether the First Respondent agreed to pay the Complainant interpreter fees for attending the retirement planning seminar.' 'Whether failure to pay interpreter fees, or the treatment of the Complainant at the Human Resources counter on 29 August 1997, constituted less favourable treatment on the ground of race under Section 7(1)(a).' 'Whether the events of 29 August 1997 constituted victimisation under Section 50 because of earlier proceedings under the Act.' 'Whether the Second and Third Respondents aided and abetted unlawful conduct.' 'Whether the complaints should be dismissed under Section 111(1) and whether costs should be ordered under Section 111(2).']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaints were dismissed because the Complainant was not a contract worker under Section 10, the evidence did not establish any agreement by the First Respondent to pay interpreter fees, the refusal to pay and the treatment at the Human Resources counter were justified and not shown to be less favourable treatment on the ground of race, any detriment was not caused by earlier proceedings, and therefore the victimisation and aiding and abetting allegations also failed. The complaints were misconceived and lacking in substance under Section 111(1), warranting dismissal and an order for costs under Section 111(2).

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed; costs awarded to each Respondent.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to Section 111(1) of the Act, the Tribunal finds that the two complaints of unlawful discrimination and the complaint of victimisation are misconceived and lack substance and directs that each complaint be dismissed.' 'Pursuant to Section 111(2) of the Act, the Complainant must pay the costs reasonably...