Zhu v TAFE NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 243

Zhu v TAFE NSW [2018] NSWCATAD 243

Leave was refused because, although the alleged conduct could constitute detriment for the purpose of the leave decision, Ms Zhu did not identify direct evidence or primary facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that her race was a reason for TAFE NSW's actions or treatment of her. Without an arguable primary act of race discrimination, the aiding and abetting complaint against the Second Respondent could not proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under Section 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 to Proceed With Declined Complaints of Race Discrimination and Aiding and Abetting Discrimination / Procedural Ruling on Leave After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave refused for both complaints.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'educational Authority' 'student Work Placement' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint' 'aiding and Abetting Discrimination' 'inference of Discriminatory Reason']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'education'] ['race Discrimination' 'educational Authority' 'student Work Placement' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint' 'aiding and Abetting Discrimination' 'inference of Discriminatory Reason']

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 Under Section 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 to Proceed With Declined Complaints of Race Discrimination and Aiding and Abetting Discrimination / Procedural Ruling on Leave After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether it was fair and just to grant leave for Ms Zhu's race discrimination complaint against TAFE NSW to proceed after it was declined as lacking in substance." "Whether there was any direct evidence or basis to infer that Ms Zhu's race was a reason for TAFE NSW's alleged conduct." 'Whether leave should be granted for the complaint that Tresillian Family Care Centres aided and abetted TAFE NSW to discriminate against Ms Zhu.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, although the alleged conduct could constitute detriment for the purpose of the leave decision, Ms Zhu did not identify direct evidence or primary facts from which it could reasonably be inferred that her race was a reason for TAFE NSW's actions or treatment of her. Without an arguable primary act of race discrimination, the aiding and abetting complaint against the Second Respondent could not proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave refused for both complaints.

Orders

  • ["Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of race, discrimination to proceed." "Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of aiding and abetting to proceed"]