De Souza v Independent Unit Management Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 311

De Souza v Independent Unit Management Pty Limited [2009] NSWADT 311

Leave was refused because IUM was contracted by and acted as agent for the Owners Corporation and was not providing services directly to Mr De Souza as an individual, and because there was no evidence from which it was open to infer that race was a reason for any alleged treatment. Some allegations also pre-dated the complaint period or raised matters outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Costs were refused because Mr De Souza gave evidence that he sought and obtained legal advice after the adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed With Race Discrimination Complaint Declined by the Anti Discrimination Board as Lacking in Substance / Extempore Decision on Leave to Proceed and Costs
Outcome
Leave refused for the complaint to proceed; respondent's application for costs refused.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['race Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'costs']

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 With Race Discrimination Complaint Declined by the Anti Discrimination Board as Lacking in Substance / Extempore Decision on Leave to Proceed and Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and just to grant leave for the complaint to proceed after it was declined by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance.' 'Whether Independent Unit Management Pty Limited provided services to Mr De Souza within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether there was evidence capable of supporting an inference that race was a reason for the alleged treatment.' "Whether particular allegations were outside the complaint period or outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction." 'Whether the respondent should receive costs for the adjourned hearing.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because IUM was contracted by and acted as agent for the Owners Corporation and was not providing services directly to Mr De Souza as an individual, and because there was no evidence from which it was open to infer that race was a reason for any alleged treatment. Some allegations also pre-dated the complaint period or raised matters outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction. Costs were refused because Mr De Souza gave evidence that he sought and obtained legal advice after the adjournment.

Court Disposition

Leave refused for the complaint to proceed; respondent's application for costs refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused for the complaint to proceed' "The respondent's application for costs is refused."]