Griffin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police and anor [2005] NSWADT 92

Griffin v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police and anor [2005] NSWADT 92

The complaint was misconceived because the applicant misunderstood the disability discrimination prohibitions in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977: being a person with disabilities who alleged mistreatment was not enough, because the conduct had to be proved to have occurred because of those disabilities. The complaint was also lacking in substance because the applicant pointed to no evidence that officers or employees of either respondent treated him as alleged because of his disabilities, making the complaint based on an untenable proposition of fact.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 April 2005
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Complaint / Applications by Both Respondents for Dismissal of Complaint Under S 111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'summary Dismissal' 'misconceived Complaint' 'complaint Lacking in Substance' 'procedural Fairness']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'summary Dismissal' 'misconceived Complaint' 'complaint Lacking in Substance' 'procedural Fairness']

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

Disability Discrimination Complaint / Applications by Both Respondents for Dismissal of Complaint Under S 111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's disability discrimination complaint against the first respondent should be dismissed under s 111 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as misconceived or lacking in substance." "Whether the applicant's disability discrimination complaint against the second respondent should be dismissed under s 111 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as misconceived or lacking in substance." 'Whether the applicant identified evidence linking his disabilities to the alleged mistreatment by police or to the alleged conduct of the Department of Housing.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was misconceived because the applicant misunderstood the disability discrimination prohibitions in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977: being a person with disabilities who alleged mistreatment was not enough, because the conduct had to be proved to have occurred because of those disabilities. The complaint was also lacking in substance because the applicant pointed to no evidence that officers or employees of either respondent treated him as alleged because of his disabilities, making the complaint based on an untenable proposition of fact.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['Complaint dismissed' 'Costs reserved' 'The first and second respondents to file and serve any application for costs within 28 days of the date of publication of this decision.']