Prasad v Labourpower Recruitment Services [2021] NSWCATAD 278

Prasad v Labourpower Recruitment Services [2021] NSWCATAD 278

Leave was refused because the claims and available evidence were lacking in substance and did not establish an arguable case that Ms Prasad was victimised by either respondent. The Tribunal accepted that she had not raised the allegations before 13 January 2021, remained employed by Labourpower, had been offered other assignments, and that Cinqplast was not her employer and had decided before becoming aware of her allegations that it no longer required her services after restructuring its workforce.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) Alleging Victimisation in Employment / Application for Leave for Complaints Referred to the Tribunal Under S 93 a to Proceed Under S 96(1)
Outcome
Leave to proceed refused against both respondents.
Legal Topics
['victimisation' 'sexual Harassment Complaint Declined as Out of Time' 'leave to Proceed' 'labour Hire Employment']
['anti Discrimination' 'employment' 'human Rights'] ['victimisation' 'sexual Harassment Complaint Declined as Out of Time' 'leave to Proceed' 'labour Hire Employment']

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 Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) Alleging Victimisation in Employment / Application for Leave for Complaints Referred to the Tribunal Under S 93 a to Proceed Under S 96(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for the victimisation complaint against Labourpower Recruitment Services to proceed.' 'Whether leave should be granted for the victimisation complaint against Cinqplast Plastop Australia Pty Ltd to proceed.' 'Whether the applicant had an arguable case that her complaint was a real, genuine or true reason for any detriment alleged.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the claims and available evidence were lacking in substance and did not establish an arguable case that Ms Prasad was victimised by either respondent. The Tribunal accepted that she had not raised the allegations before 13 January 2021, remained employed by Labourpower, had been offered other assignments, and that Cinqplast was not her employer and had decided before becoming aware of her allegations that it no longer required her services after restructuring its workforce.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed refused against both respondents.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the complaint against Labourpower Recruitment Services is refused.' 'Leave for the complaint against Cinqplast Plastop Australia Pty Limited is refused.']