Cases

Description:

In this case, the appellant sought to appeal a decision by the former ACT Discrimination Tribunal to the newly constituted ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). In Firestone and Australian National University [2009] ACTDT 1  the Discrimination Tribunal had dismissed allegations by the appellant that he was discriminated against by the ANU on disability grounds (namely, depression). 

The appellant used the HRA to support his proposition that the ACAT Act should be given a wide interpretation to enable the matter to be heard. He also provided material on the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, other material relating to human rights and a medical opinion to indicate his status [as a disabled person] (at 5).

The Tribunal considered this material did not assist it in the threshold question of jurisdiction, which was governed by s79 of the ACAT Act. Without reference to the HRA, the Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction under s 79 to hear the matter, and dismissed the appeal. It however noted that “the appellant still [had] all of his rights under the Discrimination Act and is therefore not without a review mechanism [eg by way of application to the Supreme Court].

Notably, this is the second ACAT decision to make mention of the ACT HRA. Both ACAT decisions have made only passing mention of the HRA. See also Gregory Mazzone v Neville Tomkins [2009] (Residential Tenancies) [2009] ACAT 13 

The Decision