Correy v St Jospehs Hospital Ltd [2009] NSWADT 40

Correy v St Jospehs Hospital Ltd [2009] NSWADT 40

The circumstantial evidence, the chronology of Ms Correy's complaints, the Hospital's knowledge of her objections to working in the Aged Care Psychiatry Unit, Mr Geoghegan's unsatisfactory explanation for approving the August roster, and the permissible inference that evidence from the persons who prepared the rosters would not have assisted the Hospital established to the Briginshaw standard that Ms Correy was rostered to work in that unit on the ground that she had made and persisted with complaints of discrimination. That conduct constituted victimisation under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and materially contributed to her loss of income from the issue of the August roster,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Remitted Matter Determined on the Papers After Appeal Panel Remitted the Victimisation Issue
Outcome
Complaint of victimisation substantiated; respondent ordered to pay compensation.
Legal Topics
['victimisation' 'causation' 'rostering' 'compensation' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'browne V Dunn']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['victimisation' 'causation' 'rostering' 'compensation' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'browne V Dunn']

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 of Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Remitted Matter Determined on the Papers After Appeal Panel Remitted the Victimisation Issue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the necessary causal connection existed between Ms Correy's allegations of discrimination and the detriment of being rostered to work in the Aged Care Psychiatry Unit and not being returned to the Palliative Care Unit." 'Whether any failure to put the victimisation allegation expressly to Mr Geoghegan in cross-examination prevented reliance on that allegation.' 'Whether the evidence, including circumstantial evidence and the absence of evidence from persons who prepared the rosters, established victimisation to the Briginshaw standard.' 'Whether Ms Correy was entitled to compensation under s 108 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and, if so, in what amount.']

Ratio Decidendi

The circumstantial evidence, the chronology of Ms Correy's complaints, the Hospital's knowledge of her objections to working in the Aged Care Psychiatry Unit, Mr Geoghegan's unsatisfactory explanation for approving the August roster, and the permissible inference that evidence from the persons who prepared the rosters would not have assisted the Hospital established to the Briginshaw standard that Ms Correy was rostered to work in that unit on the ground that she had made and persisted with complaints of discrimination. That conduct constituted victimisation under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and materially contributed to her loss of income from the issue of the August roster,...

Court Disposition

Complaint of victimisation substantiated; respondent ordered to pay compensation.

Orders

  • ['The complaint of victimisation is substantiated.' 'The Respondent to pay the Applicant the sum of $23,665 within 28 days.' 'If either party elects to apply for costs they must to do so within 28 days of the date of these orders.']