Queensland Judgments
Authorised Reports & Unreported Judgments
  • sclq logo
  1. Caselaw
  2. QCAT
  3. 2025
  4. Leo v Citipointe Christian College - [2025] QCAT 207

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

Leo v Citipointe Christian College[2025] QCAT 207

Leo v Citipointe Christian College[2025] QCAT 207

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Leo v Citipointe Christian College & Anor [2025] QCAT 207

PARTIES:

emmey leo

(Applicant)

v

citipointe christian college

(First respondent)

Brian mulheran

(Second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL042-24

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-Discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

21 March 2025

REASONS:

30 May 2025

HEARING DATE:

21 March 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Senior Member Traves

ORDERS:

  1. The application for miscellaneous matters (adjournment and dismissal/strike out) filed on 10 January 2025 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION DUE TO GENDER IDENTITY – EDUCATION AND GOODS AND SERVICES AREA – where the respondents filed an application to dismiss based on continued non-compliance with Tribunal directions – where directions and application to dismiss emailed to applicant’s legal representatives – where applicant not informed of directions and application to dismiss until recently – whether matter should be dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 39, s 46

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 48

Csorba v Petka Investments Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 12

Luscombe v Russell [2013] QCAT 53

Mills v Ethell [2024] QCATA 67

Schoch v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 172

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

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]
    On 2 April 2024, the applicant’s complaint made to the Queensland Human Rights Commission was referred to the Tribunal. The complaint stems from the applicant’s time at Citipointe Christian College where she claims she was discriminated against due to identifying as a transgender woman in the areas of education and goods and services.
  2. [2]
    On 13 June 2024, the Tribunal made directions that the applicant file and serve a Statement of Contentions by 4pm on 13 July 2024. The Tribunal issued the directions by email to LGBTI Legal Service (‘the Service’), the legal representatives of the applicant, and to Carter Newell, the legal representatives of the respondents. The applicant did not herself receive the directions, nor was she informed by the Service of the directions.
  3. [3]
    On 8 January 2025, the Tribunal issued a notice to the Service and Carter Newell listing the matter for compulsory conference on 19 February 2025.
  4. [4]
    On 10 January 2025, the respondents filed an application seeking to adjourn the compulsory conference and for the matter to be dismissed pursuant to s 48 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Act 2009 (Qld) (‘QCAT Act’). The application was served by sending a copy to the Service by email. The applicant again did not receive the application to dismiss, nor was she informed by the Service of the application.
  5. [5]
    On 23 January 2025, directions were made by another Senior Member to vacate the compulsory conference and for the filing of submissions by the applicant in response to the application for dismissal by 4pm on 13 February 2025.
  6. [6]
    On 25 February 2025, the Service filed an application seeking an extension of time for the applicant to file submissions on the basis the applicant should not be prejudiced by the legal representative’s errors in missing file dates and directions.
  7. [7]
    On 5 March 2025, the time for filing the submissions was extended to 14 March 2025 with a further direction, that if the applicant failed to comply, the matter may be dismissed without further notice. The directions were emailed to the Service and to Cater Newell.
  8. [8]
    On or about 12 March 2025, the applicant was informed of the Tribunal’s directions made on 13 June 2024, 23 January 2025 and 5 March 2025 and the application to dismiss.
  9. [9]
    On 13 March 2025, the applicant engaged Norton Rose Fulbright Australia to act on her behalf in this matter.
  10. [10]
    On 14 March 2025, the applicant filed submissions in response to the application for dismissal.
  11. [11]
    On 21 March 2025, I made an order refusing the application for dismissal. I received a request for reasons for that decision on 8 May 2025. These are the reasons for my decision.

The application to dismiss

  1. [12]
    The application to dismiss was made pursuant to s 48 of the QCAT Act on the basis the applicant had not filed a statement of contentions or an explanation for the failure to comply.
  2. [13]
    The application was opposed on the basis the factors in s 48(3) were factors that supported refusal of the application and, that balancing  the gravity the applicant would suffer were the proceeding dismissed, with the minimal disadvantage the respondents have suffered due to the delay, the proceeding should not be dismissed, especially considering the applicant did not know of the directions and application to dismiss until very recently.

Statutory framework

  1. [14]
    The QCAT act provides, relevantly:

48 Dismissing, striking out or deciding if party causing disadvantage

  1. (1)
    This section applies if the tribunal considers a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding, including by—
  1. (a)
    not complying with a tribunal order or direction without reasonable excuse; or
  1. (b)
    not complying with this Act, an enabling Act or the rules; or
  1. (c)
    asking for an adjournment as a result of conduct mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b); or
  1. (d)
    causing an adjournment; or
  1. (e)
    attempting to deceive another party or the tribunal; or
  1. (f)
    vexatiously conducting the proceeding; or
  1. (g)
    failing to attend conciliation, mediation or the hearing of the proceeding without reasonable excuse.
  1. (2)
    The tribunal may—
  1. (a)
    if the party causing the disadvantage is the applicant for the proceeding, order the proceeding be dismissed or struck out; or
  1. (b)
    if the party causing the disadvantage is not the applicant for the proceeding—
  1. (i)
    make its final decision in the proceeding in the applicant’s favour; or
  1. (ii)
    order that the party causing the disadvantage be removed from the proceeding; or
  1. (c)
    make an order under section 102, against the party causing the disadvantage, to compensate another party for any reasonable costs incurred unnecessarily.

Note—

See section 108 for the tribunal’s power to order that the costs be paid before it continues with the proceeding.

  1. (3)
    In acting under subsection (2), the tribunal must have regard to the following—
  1. the extent to which the party causing the disadvantage is familiar with the tribunal’s practices and procedures;
  1. the capacity of the party causing the disadvantage to understand, and act on, the tribunal’s orders and directions;
  1. whether the party causing the disadvantage is acting deliberately.

Consideration

  1. [15]
    Section 48 of the QCAT Act permits the tribunal to dismiss or strike out a proceeding if it considers a party to a proceeding is acting in a way that unnecessarily disadvantages another party to the proceeding.
  2. [16]
    To ‘cause disadvantage’ includes not complying with a tribunal order or direction without reasonable excuse.[1] The unnecessary disadvantage must be of sufficient gravity to justify dismissal or a final decision.[2]
  3. [17]
    The fact the complaint has merit will not preclude an exercise of s 48 discretion where a party has been recalcitrant or delinquent in their conduct of the proceeding to cause unnecessary disadvantage.[3]
  4. [18]
    In determining a s 48 application, a balance should be struck between the need for quick procedure and the obligation to deal with matters in a way that is fair and accessible.[4]
  5. [19]
    Turning to the factors in s 48(3) which must be considered in exercising the power to dismiss:
    1. the extent to which the applicant is familiar with the tribunal’s practices and procedures;
  6. [20]
    The applicant is a young student of Information Technology at the Queensland University of Technology. She had engaged the Service to represent her, presumably because she was not familiar with the Tribunal’s practices and procedures and felt unable to represent herself.
    1. the capacity of the party causing the disadvantage to understand, and act on, the tribunal’s orders and directions;
  7. [21]
    I am satisfied the applicant had no capacity to understand or act on the tribunal’s directions regarding the filing of a statement of contentions and the application to dismiss in circumstances where her legal representatives did not forward them to her or inform her about them.
  1. whether the party causing the disadvantage is acting deliberately.
  1. [22]
    For the reasons above, I am satisfied the applicant did not act deliberately to cause delay.
  2. [23]
    More broadly, in my view, the respondents have suffered little, if any, prejudice, but the prejudice to the applicant would be serious if the matter was struck out. That prejudice far outweighs any prejudice to the respondents. The delay was principally the fault of the lawyers then acting for the applicant; there is an explanation for the delay. Finally, the applicant has engaged new lawyers who have acted promptly to comply with the directions.
  3. [24]
    Accordingly, the application to dismiss is refused.

Footnotes

[1]QCAT Act, s 48(1)(a).

[2]Schoch v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 172 cited in Csorba v Petka Investments Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 12 at [14]; Mills v Ethell [2024] QCATA 67.

[3]Ibid.

[4]Luscombe v Russell [2013] QCAT 53.

Close

Editorial Notes

  • Published Case Name:

    Leo v Citipointe Christian College & Anor

  • Shortened Case Name:

    Leo v Citipointe Christian College

  • MNC:

    [2025] QCAT 207

  • Court:

    QCAT

  • Judge(s):

    Senior Member Traves

  • Date:

    21 Mar 2025

Appeal Status

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

Cases Cited

Case NameFull CitationFrequency
Csorba v Petka Investments Pty Ltd [2024] QCATA 12
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCATA 12
Cite 2 - [2024] QCATA 12
Luscombe and Anor v Russell and Anor [2013] QCAT 53
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2013] QCAT 53
Cite 2 - [2013] QCAT 53
Mills v Ethell [2024] QCATA 67
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2024] QCATA 67
Cite 2 - [2024] QCATA 67
Schoch v Queensland Building and Construction Commission [2019] QCAT 172
2 citations
Jump To
Cite 1 - [2019] QCAT 172
Cite 2 - [2019] QCAT 172

Cases Citing

No judgments on Queensland Judgments cite this judgment.

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.