Lancaster -V- Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [1996] NSWEOT

Lancaster -V- Vice Chancellor, Macquarie University [1996] NSWEOT

Even assuming the Complainant's pleaded allegations were made out and that more male than female students complied with the exceptional academic merit requirement, the identified aspects of applying that requirement were not shown to be unreasonable or to constitute indirect sex discrimination. Reliance on raw A grades, prize subjects, general medal standards and reporting practices did not make the complaint capable of establishing discrimination on the ground of sex, so the complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance under s.111.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Sex Discrimination Complaint / Respondent's Application Under S.111 of the Anti Discrimination Act (1977) Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint
Outcome
Complaint dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination' 'university Medal' 'dismissal of Complaint as Misconceived and Lacking in Substance']
['discrimination Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination' 'university Medal' 'dismissal of Complaint as Misconceived and Lacking in Substance']

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

Sex Discrimination Complaint / Respondent's Application Under S.111 of the Anti Discrimination Act (1977) Seeking Dismissal of the Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether certain matters in paragraph 8 of the amended Points of Claim were outside the Anti-Discrimination Board reference and therefore outside the Tribunal's jurisdiction." 'Whether the pleaded allegations in paragraphs 13 and 14, assumed to be proven, were capable of giving rise to indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act (1977).' 'Whether the criterion of exceptional academic merit for awarding the University Medal, and the way it was implemented, was unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case.' 'Whether the complaint should be dismissed under s.111 as misconceived and lacking in substance.']

Ratio Decidendi

Even assuming the Complainant's pleaded allegations were made out and that more male than female students complied with the exceptional academic merit requirement, the identified aspects of applying that requirement were not shown to be unreasonable or to constitute indirect sex discrimination. Reliance on raw A grades, prize subjects, general medal standards and reporting practices did not make the complaint capable of establishing discrimination on the ground of sex, so the complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance under s.111.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Tribunal dismisses the complaint.']