Han v NSW Department of Health & anor [2006] NSWADT 179

Han v NSW Department of Health & anor [2006] NSWADT 179

The applicant failed to show any substantial reason for leave to be granted under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The letter written by the respondent was in the normal bounds of litigation correspondence and did not amount to detriment sufficient for a claim of victimisation. There was no reasonable prospect of the complaint succeeding; hence, the application for leave was refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed (victimisation Complaint) / Application for Leave to Proceed Under S 96; Refusal of Adjournment
Outcome
Application for leave to proceed refused; application for adjournment refused.
Legal Topics
['victimisation' 'leave to Proceed' 'adjournment' 'tribunal Procedure']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['victimisation' 'leave to Proceed' 'adjournment' 'tribunal Procedure']

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

Application for Leave to Proceed (victimisation Complaint) / Application for Leave to Proceed Under S 96; Refusal of Adjournment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave to proceed with a victimisation complaint under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 after the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as misconceived and/or lacking in substance' 'Whether the letter written by Ms Thomas constituted victimisation under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977' "Whether to grant the applicant's request for adjournment"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to show any substantial reason for leave to be granted under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The letter written by the respondent was in the normal bounds of litigation correspondence and did not amount to detriment sufficient for a claim of victimisation. There was no reasonable prospect of the complaint succeeding; hence, the application for leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to proceed refused; application for adjournment refused.

Orders

  • ['Application for an adjournment is refused.' 'Application for leave is refused.']