Lam v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 174

Lam v Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 174

Leave to proceed was refused because the subject matter of the NSW complaints was sufficiently similar to previous Commonwealth complaints to come within s 92(1)(a)(v) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; it was not fair and just to allow the complaints to proceed given prior extensive consideration by other appropriate bodies. Costs were refused as it would not be fair to penalise the applicant who did not know the prior complaints would prevent further proceedings.

Parties
Applicant: Hoi Andy Lam; Respondent: Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 July 2011
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Leave to Proceed and Costs Application Determination
Outcome
Leave refused; costs refused
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Victimisation, Jurisdictional Overlap, Leave to Proceed, Costs, Prior Complaints Before Other Bodies
Equal Opportunity Law Race Discrimination Victimisation Jurisdictional Overlap Leave to Proceed Costs Prior Complaints Before Other Bodies

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hoi Andy Lam

Applicant

Parsons Brinckerhoff Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Leave to Proceed and Costs Application Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave should be granted for complaints of race discrimination and victimisation previously declined by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board on the basis that the subject matter has been or should be dealt with by another body
  2. 2 Whether the respondent should be awarded costs

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to proceed was refused because the subject matter of the NSW complaints was sufficiently similar to previous Commonwealth complaints to come within s 92(1)(a)(v) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; it was not fair and just to allow the complaints to proceed given prior extensive consideration by other appropriate bodies. Costs were refused as it would not be fair to penalise the applicant who did not know the prior complaints would prevent further proceedings.

Court Disposition

Leave refused; costs refused

Orders

  • Leave for the applicant's complaints of race discrimination and victimisation to proceed is refused.
  • The respondent's application for costs is refused.