Grass v McIntosh, Leong and Auyeng [2023] NSWCATAD 258

Grass v McIntosh, Leong and Auyeng [2023] NSWCATAD 258

The Tribunal found the applicant was subjected to detriment (exclusion from the social tennis group) by the first and second respondents on the ground that he made allegations amounting to a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, satisfying s50(1)(c). The exclusion constituted victimisation, and no evidence showed the complaint to be false or not made in good faith.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 October 2023
Procedural Posture
Complaint – Administrative and Equal Opportunity / Hearing After Remitter From Appeal Panel
Outcome
Application substantiated against first and second respondents; dismissed against third respondent for lack of service.
Legal Topics
['victimisation' 'exclusion Based on Complaints of Discrimination' 'section 50(1)(c) Anti Discrimination Act 1977']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['victimisation' 'exclusion Based on Complaints of Discrimination' 'section 50(1)(c) Anti Discrimination Act 1977']

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

Complaint – Administrative and Equal Opportunity / Hearing After Remitter From Appeal Panel

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was victimised contrary to s50(1)(c) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) on the ground of making allegations of discrimination' 'Whether the applicant was subjected to detriment by respondents on prohibited grounds; whether complaint against third respondent was valid for want of proper service']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the applicant was subjected to detriment (exclusion from the social tennis group) by the first and second respondents on the ground that he made allegations amounting to a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, satisfying s50(1)(c). The exclusion constituted victimisation, and no evidence showed the complaint to be false or not made in good faith.

Court Disposition

Application substantiated against first and second respondents; dismissed against third respondent for lack of service.

Orders

  • ['First and second respondents are enjoined from continuing or repeating any conduct rendered unlawful by Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 against the applicant.' 'First respondent must provide a copy of the decision to the management of the tennis court within 14 days.' 'First respondent must place a copy of the...