Grass v Voyager Tennis Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 168

Grass v Voyager Tennis Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCATAP 168

The Tribunal erred by treating proof that discrimination against other players had actually occurred as necessary to the appellant's victimisation claim under s.50(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and that error infected its assessment of whether detriment was imposed because the appellant had made discrimination allegations. The error required the appeal to be allowed against the second, third and fourth respondents. The appeal against Voyager was dismissed because the appellant failed to make out any prima facie case that Voyager imposed a relevant detriment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) Concerning a Dismissed Victimisation Complaint / Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision [2023] NSWCATAD 68 Dated 23 March 2023
Outcome
Appeal allowed in respect of the second, third and fourth respondents; appeal against the first respondent dismissed; decision concerning the second, third and fourth respondents set aside and remitted for reconsideration without further evidence.
Legal Topics
['victimisation' 'disability Discrimination Allegations' 'age Discrimination Allegations' 'voluntary Association' 'detriment']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['victimisation' 'disability Discrimination Allegations' 'age Discrimination Allegations' 'voluntary Association' 'detriment']

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

Appeal Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) Concerning a Dismissed Victimisation Complaint / Appeal From Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Decision [2023] NSWCATAD 68 Dated 23 March 2023

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a complainant alleging victimisation under s.50(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) must prove that the alleged discrimination actually occurred.' "Whether the Tribunal erred by requiring proof of the alleged discriminatory acts before considering whether detriment was imposed on the ground of the appellant's allegations." 'Whether Voyager Tennis Pty Ltd imposed any relevant detriment on the appellant.' "Whether the complaints against the individual respondents should be reconsidered after error in the Tribunal's approach."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal erred by treating proof that discrimination against other players had actually occurred as necessary to the appellant's victimisation claim under s.50(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and that error infected its assessment of whether detriment was imposed because the appellant had made discrimination allegations. The error required the appeal to be allowed against the second, third and fourth respondents. The appeal against Voyager was dismissed because the appellant failed to make out any prima facie case that Voyager imposed a relevant detriment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in respect of the second, third and fourth respondents; appeal against the first respondent dismissed; decision concerning the second, third and fourth respondents set aside and remitted for reconsideration without further evidence.

Orders

  • ['In respect of the second, third and fourth respondents, the appeal is allowed.' 'The appeal against the first respondent is dismissed.' 'The decision in respect of the second, third and fourth respondents is set aside with the whole of the decision remitted to the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division,...