Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2018
  4. Petrak v Griffith University - [2018] QCAT 356

Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
  • Unreported Judgment

Petrak v Griffith University[2018] QCAT 356

Petrak v Griffith University[2018] QCAT 356

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Petrak v Griffith University and Ors [2018] QCAT 356

PARTIES:

MELISSA JANE PETRAK

(applicant)

v

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

(first respondent)

v

CAROL-JOY PATRICK

(second respondent)

v

KIERAN TRANTER

(third respondent)

ORIGINATING APPLICATION NO:

ADL092-16

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 October 2018

HEARING DATE:

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Ann Fitzpatrick

ORDERS:

  1. The Application of the Respondents to strike out the Application, filed 29 November 2017, is dismissed, except as set out in Order 2 below.
  2. Any claim by the Applicant based upon indirect discrimination is dismissed.
  3. The Applicant’s claim is limited to the matters set out in this Decision, subject to a right to seek leave to amend the claim upon notice to the Respondents.
  4. The matter is to be mentioned at a Directions Hearing on a date to be advised.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION

PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT APPLICATION – Where complaint of discrimination because of impairment, family responsibilities, political beliefs. Complaint of victimisation – hearing to have Applicant describe her claims -claims not misconceived or lacking in substance.

Ss 10, 130 Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld);

S 47 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld).

REASONS FOR DECISION

  1. [1]
    The Respondents have applied to strike out the Applicant’s claims pursuant to s 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) on the basis that the claims are misconceived or lacking in substance.  In particular, it is asserted that the application does not identify “less favourable treatment” under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld); that there is no link between the actions of the Respondents and the Applicant’s protected attribute and that there is no identified detriment.
  2. [2]
    The Applicant filed a Response to the Application.  The Applicant’s written claims and her response to the application are very difficult to understand.
  3. [3]
    At relevant times the Applicant was an enrolled student at the First Applicant, undertaking studies in the Arts Faculty and the Faculty of Law.
  4. [4]
    In order to clarify the nature of the Applicant’s claims, especially in view of the fact that the Applicant is said to suffer from a cognitive impairment, I ordered that the parties attend a hearing where the Applicant would be asked to disclose on the record:
    1. (i)
      the attribute in question;
    2. (ii)
      how the Applicant was treated by the Respondents;
    3. (iii)
      why the treatment was said to be because of her attribute;
    4. (iv)
      how the treatment was less favourable than the treatment of other people in the same or similar circumstances who do not have the attribute;
    5. (v)
      if she has been asked to comply with a requirement that she has been unable to meet, but other people without the attribute can meet.  If so, what is the requirement and why is it unreasonable.
    6. (vi)
      what order the Applicant is seeking.
    7. (vii)
      why the Applicant’s claims should not be struck out before a full hearing.
  5. [5]
    The hearing proceeded on 29 March 2018. There was no cross-examination. The Applicant answered questions put by me and volunteered such information as she considered appropriate.
  6. [6]
    At the conclusion of the hearing, Mr Williams the legal representative for the Respondents submitted that in relation to some allegations of impairment discrimination, if they could be distilled into specific allegations then the matter could proceed.
  7. [7]
    However, Mr Williams went on to submit that it would be unfair and unavailable for the Respondents to be put to an indirect discrimination case or a victimisation case because it does not seem that there has been any case put.
  8. [8]
    I have reviewed the transcript of the hearing on 29 March 2018.
  9. [9]
    I am satisfied that Applicant oral contentions are sufficient to justify her claims proceeding to a hearing.
  10. [10]
    The Applicant was able to articulate the following:
    1. (i)
      A claim for direct discrimination on the basis of:
      1. Impairment, where the impairment is:
  • a medical condition of Dyspraxia, manifesting in painful joints and cognitive impairment affecting language; and
  • injuries resulting from a motor vehicle accident on 3 October 2014 including a torn anterior cruciate ligament, torn shoulder and an elbow injury.
    1. Family Responsibilities, including care for her 14 year old daughter Milla who suffered injuries in the 3 October 2014 motor vehicle accident; the home schooling of her son, and care for a child or  children with an impairment.
    2. Political beliefs, which are said to be “left of centre” and expressed in the political work the Applicant was doing (which I understood to be a reference to her work in a project known as Reporters without Borders).
  1. (ii)
    Less favourable treatment by the First and Second Respondents in the Community Internship Project because of her impairment:
    1. medical certificates were not accepted as sufficient by the Second Respondent, the convenor of the Community Internship Project;
    2. being encouraged to withdraw from the Trinity Community  Internship Project by the Second Respondent;
    3. being withdrawn from the Trinity Community Internship Project;
    4. not being given extra time to submit work to the Second Respondent;
    5. no consideration being given to an inability to type;
    6. work was marked by the Applicant’s son’s ex-girlfriend; and
    7. no portal being made available to her which set out when assessment was due. This is also said to be because the Applicant’s political beliefs.
  2. (iii)
    Less favourable treatment by the Frist and Third Respondents in the subject Civil Procedure because of impairment and family responsibilities:
    1. no special consideration being made for the Applicant in relation to her assessment and the sitting of a Civil Procedure exam;
    2. the requirement by the lecturer in Civil Procedure, the Third Respondent, to provide more information than that provided on a disablilty form to enable her to sit the exam;
    3. no response being given to a lengthy letter to the Third Respondent  by the Applicant’s Disability Officer;
    4. refusal by the Third Respondent to allow the Civil Procedure exam to be assessed as 100% of the assessment; and
    5. no extra time being given to do Civil Procedure assessment.
  3. (iv)
    Than another person without the attribute is treated in circumstances that are the same or not materially different:
    1. others do not have their medical certificates questioned;
    2. others are given extra time if they are injured;
    3. adjustments have been given in other faculties;
    4. it contravenes Griffith University policy to withdraw someone from of a project because of their disability;
    5. others have been allowed to do a 100% exam or a further exam.
  1. [11]
    These matters are not particularised and represent only what I have discerned to be the nature of the Applicant’s claims. It will be a matter for the Applicant to present sufficient evidence to back up her claims and conduct her case.  Nevertheless, I do not think that there are grounds to strike out the Applicant’s claims as misconceived or lacking in substance.
  2. [12]
    The Applicant also complains that she was not granted “recognized prior learning” in the Arts Faculty of the First Respondent. She asserts that refusal was because she had made a complaint to the Equity department of the First Respondent in July 2015 about the alleged conduct of the Second Respondent. The decision not to grant recognized prior learning was made after that date. The Applicant asserts there is an inference  the two issues are connected.
  3. [13]
    That allegation is sufficiently clear and able to be identified with s 130 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) for it to proceed.
  4. [14]
    The Applicant was asked to articulate her complaint of indirect discrimination.  She was unable to say what term or condition might have been imposed on her, being an essential element of such a claim.  I do not think that any such claim can proceed. To the extent that it currently forms part of the Applicant’s claims it is dismissed.
  5. [15]
    The Applicant said that she seeks the following remedies:
    1. (i)
      to be entitled to finish the 4 remaining law subjects in her degree;
    2. (ii)
      for recognized prior learning to be reconsidered by the Arts Faculty;
    3. (iii)
      that she be entitled to sit the Civil Procedure exam and exams in the other subjects she failed to sit.
    4. (iv)
      compensation.
  6. [16]
    The application to strike out the Applicant’s claims is dismissed, except insofar as the Applicant maintains a claim for indirect discrimination.
  7. [17]
    The hearing of this matter will proceed in relation to the matters identified in this decision as forming the Applicant’s claims. Should the Applicant wish to amend her claims, she must seek leave of the Tribunal to do so, on notice to the Respondents.
  8. [18]
    The matter should proceed to a Directions Hearing for the purpose of determining the steps required of each party before a hearing.
Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Melissa Jane Petrak v Griffith University & Ors

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Petrak v Griffith University

  • MNC:

    [2018] QCAT 356

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Member Ann Fitzpatrick

  • Date:

    09 Oct 2018

Appeal Status

Please note, appeal data is presently unavailable for this judgment. This judgment may have been the subject of an appeal.

Cases Cited

No judgments cited by this judgment.

Cases Citing

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Campbell v Henwood [2019] QIRC 242 citations
Petrak v Griffith University & Ors [2020] QCAT 3512 citations
1

Require Technical Assistance?

Message sent!

Thanks for reaching out! Someone from our team will get back to you soon.

Message not sent!

Something went wrong. Please try again.