Tannock v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWADT 31

Tannock v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWADT 31

The Tribunal found that, while the incidents relied on by the Applicant may have been unsavoury and caused distress, the evidence did not establish that conduct was 'on the grounds of disability' so as to amount to unlawful discrimination under s49B, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish victimisation contrary to s50. The pranks and jokes formed part of a long-standing workplace culture involving all employees, including the Applicant prior to his injury, and no less favourable treatment was proved. The evidence did not show a causal link between any protected act and subsequent detriment for victimisation. Accordingly, both the disability discrimination and victimisation...

Parties
Applicant: John Kerr Tannock; Respondent: Hunter Area Health Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity (disability Discrimination and Victimisation) / Application by Respondent for Summary Dismissal Under S111 Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw), After Close of Applicant's Case on Liability
Outcome
Complaints dismissed under s111 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for lack of substance.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Workplace Harassment, Summary Dismissal of Complaint, Burden of Proof, Objective Test for Discrimination
Anti Discrimination Law Employment Law Disability Discrimination Victimisation Workplace Harassment Summary Dismissal of Complaint Burden of Proof Objective Test for Discrimination

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kerr Tannock

Applicant

Hunter Area Health Service

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity (disability Discrimination and Victimisation) / Application by Respondent for Summary Dismissal Under S111 Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw), After Close of Applicant's Case on Liability

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant was subjected to unlawful disability discrimination in employment contrary to s49B Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was subjected to unlawful victimisation contrary to s50 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  3. 3 Whether the evidence established less favourable treatment 'on the grounds of disability' or victimisation because of actions taken under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, while the incidents relied on by the Applicant may have been unsavoury and caused distress, the evidence did not establish that conduct was 'on the grounds of disability' so as to amount to unlawful discrimination under s49B, nor was there sufficient evidence to establish victimisation contrary to s50. The pranks and jokes formed part of a long-standing workplace culture involving all employees, including the Applicant prior to his injury, and no less favourable treatment was proved. The evidence did not show a causal link between any protected act and subsequent detriment for victimisation. Accordingly, both the disability discrimination and victimisation...

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed under s111 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for lack of substance.

Orders

  • Disability discrimination complaint dismissed under s111 Anti-Discrimination Act.
  • Victimisation complaint dismissed under s111 Anti-Discrimination Act.