Wright v State of NSW (NSW Police Force) [2014] NSWCATAD 41

Wright v State of NSW (NSW Police Force) [2014] NSWCATAD 41

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider any part of a complaint that challenges a decision or order made by the Commissioner of Police under s 173(9) of the Police Act 1990. Complaints regarding the requirement to wear the appointments belt and the manner of investigation, which do not impugn the disciplinary order itself, are not dismissed and may proceed. Costs are not awarded as the respondent's application was legitimate and did not unnecessarily disadvantage the applicant.

Parties
Applicant: Grant Wright; Respondent: NSW Police Force; Respondent: Henry Daris York
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Jurisdictional Dismissal and Directions
Outcome
Part of the complaint dismissed; remainder not dismissed; costs not awarded; matter stood over for case conference.
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Disciplinary Proceedings, Indirect Discrimination, Victimisation, Costs
Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Employment Law Jurisdiction Disciplinary Proceedings Indirect Discrimination Victimisation Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grant Wright

Applicant

NSW Police Force

Respondent

Henry Daris York

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Jurisdictional Dismissal and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine complaints about actions taken under s.173(9) of the Police Act 1990
  2. 2 Whether requiring the applicant to wear an appointments belt constituted indirect discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the investigation of the incident constituted victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to consider any part of a complaint that challenges a decision or order made by the Commissioner of Police under s 173(9) of the Police Act 1990. Complaints regarding the requirement to wear the appointments belt and the manner of investigation, which do not impugn the disciplinary order itself, are not dismissed and may proceed. Costs are not awarded as the respondent's application was legitimate and did not unnecessarily disadvantage the applicant.

Court Disposition

Part of the complaint dismissed; remainder not dismissed; costs not awarded; matter stood over for case conference.

Orders

  • Any part of Mr Wright's complaint alleging the Commissioner breached the Anti-Discrimination Act by making a decision or order under s.173(9) of the Police Act 1990 is dismissed.
  • Parts of Mr Wright's complaint relating to requiring him to wear the appointments belt or the manner of investigation are not dismissed.