Kamar -V- Kanweld Products Pty Limited [1997] NSWEOT

Kamar -V- Kanweld Products Pty Limited [1997] NSWEOT

The complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal was satisfied that it lacked substance and was not likely or capable of being established. The complainant had been given ample opportunity to prepare and had been warned that no further adjournment was likely, making it unfair to the respondent to delay the matter...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 May 1997
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination in Employment Complaint / Inquiry Hearing; Respondent's Application to Dismiss the Complaint Under S 111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['disability in Employment' 'dismissal of Complaint for Lack of Substance' 'adjournment Application' 'workplace Attendance and Termination' 'subpoena for Employee Names and Addresses']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'tribunal Procedure'] ['disability in Employment' 'dismissal of Complaint for Lack of Substance' 'adjournment Application' 'workplace Attendance and Termination' 'subpoena for Employee Names and Addresses']

Source-derived case record

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

Disability Discrimination in Employment Complaint / Inquiry Hearing; Respondent's Application to Dismiss the Complaint Under S 111(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the hearing should proceed despite the complainant's non-appearance and request for a further adjournment." 'Whether the complaint of disability discrimination in employment lacked substance and should be dismissed under s 111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether the evidence was capable of establishing that the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the ground of his alleged back disability.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was dismissed because the Tribunal was satisfied that it lacked substance and was not likely or capable of being established. The complainant had been given ample opportunity to prepare and had been warned that no further adjournment was likely, making it unfair to the respondent to delay the matter again. On the evidence, the respondent was not shown to have known of any alleged back disability until after serious attendance concerns had arisen, the termination was connected to unsatisfactory attendance and lateness, and the complainant's lack of frankness about prior employment and workers compensation matters undermined his credit.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The complaint is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.' 'Any exhibits sought by the respondent are to be returned after the 21-day appeal period has expired, on the basis that no appeal is lodged.']