Shaikh -v- Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd & ors [2001] NSWADT 221

Shaikh -v- Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd & ors [2001] NSWADT 221

Taking the applicant's evidence at its highest, there was no evidence that the applicant was subjected to any detriment by the acts or omissions of Sergeant Pratt or the third respondent, nor any evidence that any alleged detriment was caused on the ground that the applicant had engaged in protected acts under s. 50(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Accordingly, the complaint of victimisation was lacking in substance and should be dismissed under s. 111(1) of the Act.

Parties
Applicant: Zaheer Shaikh; First Respondent: Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd; Second Respondent: Bob and Bea Dowling; Third Respondent: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Division Victimisation Complaint / Preliminary Matter; Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Complaint of victimisation against the third respondent is dismissed.
Legal Topics
Victimisation, Summary Dismissal, Administrative Law, Race Discrimination
Anti Discrimination Law Victimisation Summary Dismissal Administrative Law Race Discrimination

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zaheer Shaikh

Applicant

Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd

First Respondent

Bob and Bea Dowling

Second Respondent

Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity Division Victimisation Complaint / Preliminary Matter; Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint of victimisation against the third respondent should be dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance under s. 111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the applicant's evidence at its highest, there was no evidence that the applicant was subjected to any detriment by the acts or omissions of Sergeant Pratt or the third respondent, nor any evidence that any alleged detriment was caused on the ground that the applicant had engaged in protected acts under s. 50(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Accordingly, the complaint of victimisation was lacking in substance and should be dismissed under s. 111(1) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Complaint of victimisation against the third respondent is dismissed.

Orders

  • Complaint of victimisation in respect of the third respondent is dismissed.