Chen v Commissioner NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 245

Chen v Commissioner NSW Police Force [2020] NSWCATAD 245

Leave was refused because the complaint lacked substance and it would not be fair and just to permit it to proceed. Although the Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's jurisdictional contention and held that police complaint handling was reasonably arguable as a service under s 19, the victimisation allegation was not reasonably arguable because the material did not support an inference that Officer Piper's alleged statements were made for a real, genuine or true reason connected with Mr Chen's earlier discrimination complaint. The race discrimination allegation was also misconceived because the material showed NSW Police investigated and reviewed Mr Chen's complaints, and did not support...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for an Anti Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) After the President Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance and Referred It to the Tribunal at the Complainant's Request
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'provision of Services' 'police Complaint Handling' 'leave to Proceed After Declined Complaint']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law'] ['race Discrimination' 'victimisation' 'provision of Services' 'police Complaint Handling' 'leave to Proceed After Declined Complaint']

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

Application for Leave for an Anti Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) After the President Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance and Referred It to the Tribunal at the Complainant's Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the complaint to proceed.' 'Whether the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction because the conduct complained of did not involve provision of services within s 19 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' 'Whether it was reasonably arguable that Officer Piper victimised Mr Chen contrary to s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' 'Whether it was reasonably arguable that NSW Police refused to provide complaint handling services or provided those services on discriminatory terms on the ground of race contrary to s 19 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the complaint lacked substance and it would not be fair and just to permit it to proceed. Although the Tribunal rejected the Commissioner's jurisdictional contention and held that police complaint handling was reasonably arguable as a service under s 19, the victimisation allegation was not reasonably arguable because the material did not support an inference that Officer Piper's alleged statements were made for a real, genuine or true reason connected with Mr Chen's earlier discrimination complaint. The race discrimination allegation was also misconceived because the material showed NSW Police investigated and reviewed Mr Chen's complaints, and did not support...

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • ['Leave for the complaint to proceed is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).']