Flori v Carroll[2022] QIRC 34

QUEENSLAND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION

Reasons for Decision

Introduction and background

1. [1]
   Mr Ricky Flori commenced employment with the Queensland Police Service ('the Service') as a Cadet on 1 February 1988 and was inducted as a Constable on 7 July 1989.

2. [2]
   On 27 April 2017, Mr Flori commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland, pursuant to s 42 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 ('the PIDA'), alleging that he had been the subject of a reprisal, within the meaning of s 40 of the PIDA, because he had made a public interest disclosure within the meaning of s 11 of the PIDA ('the civil proceedings'). The relief Mr Flori seeks is damages.

3. [3]
   On 2 November 2017, after 28 years of service as a sworn officer, Mr Flori resigned from the Service.

4. [4]
   By email sent on 8 November 2019, Mr Flori sought from Ms Katarina Carroll, the Commissioner of the Service ('the Commissioner'), that she issue to him certain honours and awards which were in the discretion of the Commissioner to issue. Those honours and awards included the 25 year clasps for the National Medal, the Queensland Police Service Medal and the rosettes for the ribbon bar ('the awards').

5. [5]
   By letter dated 12 December 2019, the Commissioner responded to Mr Flori indicating that she did not intend to make a determination about Mr Flori's eligibility for the awards until all of Mr Flori's 'court appeals' were finalised ('the Commissioner's decision'). The reason given by the Commissioner for the deferral of the decision to issue the awards was that Mr Flori's court matters were related to a complaint to which he was subject at the time of his resignation.

6. [6]
   By subsequent correspondence dated 17 January 2020, the Commissioner further advised Mr Flori that because the civil proceedings would consider issues relating to actions taken by him, findings of fact may be made by the Court which may affect the assessment of his eligibility for the awards.

7. [7]
   On 19 June 2020, the civil proceedings were transferred to the District Court of Queensland.

8. [8]
   The PIDA provides that a person may make a complaint under the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 ('the ADA') about a reprisal within the meaning of s 40 of the PIDA,^[1] and that such a complaint may be dealt with under ch 6 and ch 7 of the ADA as if the complaint was about an alleged contravention of the ADA.^[2]

9. [9]
   On 5 August 2020, pursuant to s 44 of the PIDA, Mr Flori made a complaint to the Queensland Human Rights Commission alleging that the Commissioner's decision was a reprisal, within the meaning of s 40 of the PIDA, because he had made a public interest disclosure, being the public interest disclosure the subject of the civil proceedings ('the complaint').

10. [10]
    On 24 December 2020, the complaint was, pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991, referred by the Human Rights Commissioner to this Commission. Mr Flori has pursued his complaint before this Commission and he seeks various orders and other relief against the Commissioner and the State of Queensland ('the Respondents') under the ADA to remedy the alleged reprisal ('Mr Flori's claim').

11. [11]
    Following a number of directions orders being issued by me, Mr Flori's claim was set down for hearing on 8 December 2021.

12. [12]
    However, at the commencement of the hearing, the Respondents made an oral application in existing proceedings ('the Respondents' application') that, pursuant to s 193A of the ADA, the complaint should be transferred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('QCAT'). The Respondents' contention is that the complaint is not a 'work‑related matter' within the meaning of sch 1 of the ADA, such that pursuant to s 166(1)(b) of the ADA, the Human Rights Commissioner should have, and could only have, referred the complaint to the QCAT.

13. [13]
    I issued a further directions order for the parties to file and serve written submissions in relation to the Respondents' application. All parties have complied with those directions.

14. [14]
    This is my decision about the Respondents' application.

15. [15]
    For the reasons that follow, the complaint is a 'work-related matter' within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the ADA. The complaint was lawfully referred by the Human Rights Commissioner to this Commission pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the ADA. The consequence is that the Respondents' application is dismissed.

The referral of the complaint by the Human Rights Commissioner to this Commission

16. [16]
    In the Form 85 referral of the complaint by the Human Rights Commissioner to this Commission, the delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner made the following special comments:

This complaint was accepted under sections 136 and 141 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (the AD Act) because it sets out reasonably sufficient details to indicate an alleged contravention of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010 (the PID Act).

The complaint relates to or includes work or the work-related area and has been referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission (the "QIRC") pursuant to section 166(1)(a) of the Act.

The Queensland Human Rights Commission (the "QHRC") treated the complaint as alleging:

Reprisal - section 40(1)(b) of the PID Act

The QIRC and the parties to the complaint are not bound by the QHRC characterisation of the complaint.

The relevant legislative provisions

The Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010

17. [17]
    Section 40(1) of the PIDA relevantly provides that a person must not cause, or attempt or conspire to cause, detriment to another person because, or in the belief that the other person or someone else has made, or intends to make, a public interest disclosure. Section 40(3) of the PIDA provides that a contravention of s 40(1) of the PIDA is a reprisal or the taking of a reprisal.

18. [18]
    Section 44 of the PIDA relevantly provides:

44  Complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

3. (1)
    A person may make a complaint under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 about a reprisal.

3. (2)
    The complaint may be dealt with under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, chapters 6 and 7 as if the complaint were about an alleged contravention of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991.

The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

19. [19]
    Section 166(1) of the ADA relevantly provides:

166  Complainant may obtain referral of unconciliated complaint

3. (1)
    Within 28 days of being notified that the complaint can not be resolved by conciliation, a complainant may, by written notice, require the commissioner to refer the complaint to-

1. (a)
    if the complaint is or includes a work-related matter-the industrial relations commission; or

2. (b)
    otherwise-QCAT.

Note-

If the complaint includes a work-related matter and a matter other than a work‑related matter, the complaint must be referred to the industrial relations commission. However, the commission may transfer the complaint to QCAT under section 193A.

20. [20]
    It is apparent, and I do not understand the Respondents to contend otherwise, that the Human Rights Commissioner must, in respect of exercising discretion pursuant to s 166(1) of the ADA, form an opinion as to whether or not '… the complaint is or includes a work‑related matter.'

21. [21]
    Chapter 7, pt 2 of the ADA sets out, amongst other things, the functions and powers of the QCAT and the Commission. Relevantly, s 174B of the ADA provides:

174B  Functions of industrial relations commission

The industrial relations commission has the following functions-

1. (a)
    in relation to complaints about contraventions of this Act that are referred, or to be referred, to the commission under this Act-

1. (i)
    to make orders under section 144 before the complaints are referred to the tribunal; and

2. (ii)
    to review decisions of the commissioner under section 169 about lapsing of the complaints; and

3. (iii)
    to enforce agreements for resolution of the complaints by conciliation; and

4. (iv)
    to hear and decide the complaints;

2. (b)
    to grant exemptions from this Act in relation to work-related matters;

3. (c)
    to provide opinions about the application of this Act in relation to work‑related matters;

4. (d)
    any other function conferred on the commission by this Act;

5. (e)
    to take any other action incidental or conducive to the discharge of a function mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d).

22. [22]
    The phrase 'work-related matter' is exhaustively defined in sch 1 to the ADA. That definition provides:

work-related matter means a complaint or other matter relating to, or including, work or the work‑related area.

23. [23]
    Schedule 1 to the ADA non-exhaustively defines 'work'. It provides:

work includes-

1. (a)
    work in a relationship of employment (including full-time, part-time, casual, permanent and temporary employment); and

2. (b)
    work under a contract for services; and

3. (c)
    work remunerated in whole or in part on a commission basis; and

4. (d)
    work under a statutory appointment; and

5. (e)
    work under a work experience arrangement within the meaning of the Education (Work Experience) Act 1996, section 4; and

(ea)  work under a vocational placement; and

6. (f)
    work on a voluntary or unpaid basis; and

7. (g)
    work by a person with an impairment in a sheltered workshop, whether on a paid basis (including a token remuneration or allowance) or an unpaid basis; and

8. (h)
    work under a guidance program, an apprenticeship training program or other occupational training or retraining program.

24. [24]
    There is no definition of the phrase 'work-related area' in the ADA.

25. [25]
    However, ch 2, pt 4, div 2, sub-div 1 of the ADA sets out the areas of activity in which discrimination is prohibited in work and in work-related areas.

26. [26]
    The heading to div 2 is 'Work and work-related areas.'

27. [27]
    The heading to sub-div 1 is 'Prohibitions in work and work-related areas.'

28. [28]
    Section 13 of the ADA is located within ch 2, pt 4, div 2, sub-div 1 of the ADA, and relevantly provides:

13 Explanatory provision (prohibitions)

3. (1)
    A person must not discriminate in the work or work-related area if a prohibition in sections 14 to 23 applies.

29. [29]
    The prohibitions are:

• discrimination in the pre-work area;^[3]

• discrimination in work area;^[4]

• discrimination by principals;^[5]

• discrimination by proposed partners and existing partners in pre‑partnership area;^[6]

• discrimination by existing partners in existing partnership area;^[7]

• discrimination by industrial, professional, trade or business organisation in pre‑membership and membership areas;^[8]

• discrimination by qualifying bodies in pre-qualification and qualification areas;^[9] and

• discrimination in employment agency area.^[10]

The Respondents' submissions

30. [30]
    The Respondents submit that:

• the construction of a statute involves a consideration of the context and purpose of the relevant provision to determine the meaning of the words actually used;^[11]

• each of the definitions of 'work' (in the definition provided in sch 1 to the ADA) are referable to an individual taking part in the type of work as set out, such that, as a consequence, the act of discrimination that a complainant may seek to rely upon must occur whilst the complainant is actually working pursuant to one of the categories defined; in other words, a complainant had to be employed when the act of discrimination took place; and

• in the present case, Mr Flori was not employed in the Service when he made his request to the Commissioner for the issuing of the awards.

31. [31]
    The Respondents then submitted:

19. Support for this submission can be derived from a review of the prohibitions in work and work-related areas as set out in ss. 13 to 23 of the AD Act. Importantly, s. 13 which is a section headed "Explanatory provision (prohibitions)" expressly states that:

"A person must not discriminate in the work or work-related area if a prohibition in sections 14 to 23 applies." (underlining added)

20. The use of the word "in" is to be interpreted as applying to an act of discrimination whilst the individual is in work, does work or is doing work: see also s.15A of the AD Act. Furthermore, ss.14 and 15 provide that discrimination must not occur in the pre-work area or work area. There is no contemplation of discrimination when an individual is no longer employed/tasked to carry out work.

32. [32]
    It is for these reasons that the Respondents submit that the Commission does not have jurisdiction to hear the complaint.

33. [33]
    The Respondents contend that because the complaint is not a work-related matter, the Commission should transfer the complaint to the QCAT pursuant to s 193A(1) and (2) of the ADA.

Mr Flori's submissions

34. [34]
    In summary, Mr Flori relevantly submitted that:

• this Commission has exclusive jurisdiction for all work and work-related areas of activity while the QCAT is responsible for the remainder;

• the definition of 'work' in the ADA includes '… work in a relationship of employment' which makes no distinction between past work, current work or future work and may be interpreted as working in a relationship of employment that has ceased;

• because the ADA defines the phrase 'work-related matter' by using the dual expressions 'relating to' and 'or including' work or the work-related area, it is clear that the legislature intended to give the definition an extremely wide meaning which is wide enough to capture all and any matters involving work or in a work‑related area;

• whether his complaint involves a work-related matter is to be determined by the facts that gave rise to his complaint; and

• the facts that gave rise to his complaint concern the decisions of the Commissioner not to issue him the awards to which he believes he is entitled given his service as a police officer and that those decisions amount to a reprisal within the meaning of the PIDA, such that the facts that gave rise to his complaint, for the purposes of the ADA, are in the work or work-related areas of activity.

35. [35]
    The Respondents made no submissions in reply.

The complaint is a work-related matter

36. [36]
    The Respondents, in their submissions, focus upon the definition of 'work' in sch 1 to the ADA in contending that the complaint is not a work-related matter. They contend that for a person to have a legitimate complaint of unlawful discrimination in the work area, the impugned act or omission must occur while the person is actually working pursuant to one of the categories of 'work' as defined in sch 1 to the ADA.

37. [37]
    The Respondents further contend that submission is supported because s 13(1) of the ADA provides that a person must not discriminate '… in the work or work-related area', if a prohibition contained in ss 14 to 23 of the ADA applies. The support is said to be derived because, due to s 13(1) containing the word 'in', that means the only unlawful act of discrimination that can occur in the work area is when a person is in 'work', does 'work' or is doing 'work.'

38. [38]
    I cannot accept these submissions.

39. [39]
    What is required to be considered, in respect of the exercise of discretion by the Human Rights Commissioner to refer a complaint to this Commission pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the ADA, is whether the complaint '… is or includes a work-related matter.'

40. [40]
    The Respondents ignore the exhaustive definition of the phrase 'work‑related matter' contained in sch 1 of the ADA. The determination of the Respondents' application involves the construction of the phrase 'work-related matter' in the context in which it appears in s 166(1)(a) of the ADA.

41. [41]
    The technique of statutory construction is to choose, from among the range of possible meanings, the meaning which Parliament should be taken to have intended.^[12]

42. [42]
    The plurality consisting of Kiefel CJ, Nettle J and Gordon J in SZTAL v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection^[13] summarised the modern approach to statutory construction, namely:

14 The starting point for the ascertainment of the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute whilst, at the same time, regard is had to its context and purpose. Context should be regarded at this first stage and not at some later stage and it should be regarded in its widest sense. This is not to deny the importance of the natural and ordinary meaning of a word, namely how it is ordinarily understood in discourse, to the process of construction. Considerations of context and purpose simply recognise that, understood in its statutory, historical or other context, some other meaning of a word may be suggested, and so too, if its ordinary meaning is not consistent with the statutory purpose, that meaning must be rejected.^[14]

43. [43]
    Consideration of the context includes surrounding provisions, what may be drawn from other aspects of the instrument, the instrument as a whole and it extends to what the instrument seeks to remedy.^[15] The meaning of a provision in a statute must be determined by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole^[16] and the legislative instrument must be construed on the prima facie basis that its provisions are intended to give effect to harmonious goals.^[17] Further, the purpose of legislation must be derived from what the legislation says, and not from any assumption about the desired or desirable reach or operation of relevant provisions.^[18]

44. [44]
    However, it is still the fundamental duty of a court to give meaning to the legislative command according to the terms in which it is being expressed and legislative history and references to pre-existing law should not deflect from the duty of resolving an issue of statutory construction which ultimately is always a text-based activity.^[19] To this end, it has been held that the ultimate question, in every case, is the meaning of the words, in all their context, as they were intended by Parliament.^[20]

45. [45]
    Breaking the definition of 'work-related matter,' as contained in sch 1 to the ADA, down to its component parts, a 'work-related matter' means:

• a complaint relating to work or the work-related area; or

• other matter relating to work or the work-related area; or

• a complaint including work or the work-related area; or

• other matter including work or the work-related area.

46. [46]
    The function of a statutory definition is merely to indicate that when particular words or expressions, the subject of the definition, are found in the substantive part of the statute under consideration, they are to be understood in their defined sense, or are taken to include certain things which, but for the definition, they would not include. Such provisions are no more than an aid to the construction of the statute and do not operate in any other way.^[21]

47. [47]
    The non-exhaustive definition of 'work' gives meaning to that word as it is found in the provisions of the ADA where the context and subject matter of the provisions require the application of that definition.^[22] For example, s 14(b) of the ADA provides that a person must not discriminate in deciding who should be offered 'work.' Clearly, the non‑exhaustive definition of 'work' in sch 1 to the ADA has application to that provision.

48. [48]
    However, for the reasons I give below, reliance on the definition of 'work' is not determinative in the construction of the definition of 'work-related matter' given the context in which the word 'work' is used in that definition.

49. [49]
    Having regard to ch 2, pt 4, div 2, sub-div 1 of the ADA, s 14, s 15 and s 15A of the ADA contain prohibitions against a person discriminating in the work area. This is because those provisions prohibit a person from discriminating against a person who may be offered work or who is a worker.

50. [50]
    By contrast, ss 16 to 23 of the ADA contain prohibitions against a person or persons discriminating in the work-related areas. This is because those provisions prohibit a person or persons, identified in those sections, discriminating against:

• a person who is or who may be invited to become a partner;

• a person who is a member or who may apply or wish to become a member of an industrial, professional, trade or business organisation;

• a person who may be granted, have renewed, have extended or have revoked or withdrawn a qualification or authorisation; and

• a person seeking work or an employer seeking a worker.

51. [51]
    Reading the ADA as a whole, and by having regard to the precise words used in the definition of 'work-related matter' in sch 1 to the ADA, in particular, '… work or the work‑related area', the provisions of the ADA that disclose the context and purpose in which those words are used are discerned from ch 2, pt 4, div 2, sub-div 1 of the ADA. This is because those provisions describe the acts and omissions which amount to unlawful discrimination in the 'work area' and in the 'work-related areas.'

52. [52]
    That is to say, where the definition of 'work-related matter' refers to a complaint relating to '… work or the work-related area', this phrase means the work area or the work-related areas as referred to in ch 2, pt 4, div 2, sub-div 1 of the ADA. The construction of that phrase is not determined by interpreting the word 'work' solely by reference to the definition of 'work' in sch 1 to the ADA. In my view, a broader construction is required having regard to the ADA as a whole.

53. [53]
    In any event, in the present case, the specific question of whether the complaint is a work‑related matter concerns the question of whether the complaint is one '… relating to…work or the work-related area.' Mr Flori was an employee of the State of Queensland,^[23] but was not at the time of his request for the awards and at the time of the Commissioner's decision. In determining whether the complaint must have been referred to this Commission by the Human Rights Commissioner pursuant to s 166(1)(a) of the ADA, the definition of 'work-related matter' needs to be considered and, relevantly, a construction given to the phrase '… a complaint… relating to work or the work related area.'

54. [54]
    The phrase '… relating to' is extremely wide but it is also vague and indefinite. It predicates the existence of some kind of relationship, but leaves unspecified the plane upon which the relationship is to be sought and identified. In such a case, all that a court can do is to endeavour to seek some precision in the context in which the expression is used.^[24]

55. [55]
    Consideration of legislative history and extrinsic materials, has utility if, and in so far as, it assists in fixing the meaning of the statutory text, although legislative history and extrinsic materials cannot displace the meaning of the statutory text and their examination is not an end in itself.^[25] In my view, a consideration of the legislative history and the relevant extrinsic materials is of assistance in determining the meaning of the phrase 'work-related matter' as defined in the ADA.

56. [56]
    Sections 166 and 174B of the ADA, and the definition of 'work‑related matter' contained in sch 1 of the ADA, were introduced by amendments to the ADA brought about by the enactment of the Industrial Relations Act 2016.^[26] As referred to by Mr Flori in his submissions, the Explanatory Notes to the Industrial Relations Bill 2016 dealt with the definition of 'work-related matter' as introduced into sch 1 to the ADA. The Explanatory Notes relevantly provide:

A ‘work-related matter’ is defined to capture all matters involving work or in a work-related area. The definition is intended to cover discrimination complaints as well as other jurisdiction of the Anti-Discrimination Commission, including for example: sexual harassment (section 118); victimisation (section 129); vilification (section 124A) and complaints about a reprisal under section 44 of the Public Interest Disclosure Act 2010.^[27]

57. [57]
    In the second reading speech to the Industrial Relations Bill 2016, the Minister relevantly stated:

Thirdly, the bill strengthens and expands the role of Queensland’s industrial tribunals in line again with the recommendations from the report of the industrial relations reference group. Under the bill, the QIRC will have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with all workplace related antidiscrimination matters, including those taken under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.These matters will go to the Anti-Discrimination Commission in the first instance but, if they cannot be resolved through conciliation and they are work related, the matter will be referred to the Queensland Industrial Relations Commission.^[28]

58. [58]
    Having regard to the Explanatory Notes to the Industrial Relations Bill 2016 and to the Minister's second reading speech, it seems to me that the purpose of the definition of 'work-related matter' is to provide for a wide or broad relationship between a complaint and the work area so that the matter would be justiciable by the Commission as opposed to QCAT.

59. [59]
    That is to say, the statutory context of the definition of the phrase 'work-related matter' does not suggest a narrow relationship between the complaint and the work area, such that a work-related matter is one, as contended by the Respondents, only where there is a complaint about acts or omissions that occurred when a person was actually employed.

60. [60]
    In the present case, there is a clear relationship or connection between the complaint and the work area. There are three reasons for this view.

61. [61]
    First, Mr Flori was employed by the State of Queensland as a police officer. One of the reasons given by the Commissioner to delay the decision about whether or not the awards may be issued to Mr Flori concerns findings that may be made by a court about Mr Flori's conduct during his service as a police officer.

62. [62]
    Secondly, having regard to the date Mr Flori commenced the civil proceedings in the Supreme Court of Queensland, which was while he was still a serving police officer, it is reasonable to infer that he made the alleged public interest disclosure, the subject of the civil proceedings, while he was an employee. It is that public interest disclosure that Mr Flori contends is the reason for the reprisal he alleges the Respondents have taken against him.

63. [63]
    Thirdly, because of his service as an employee, Mr Flori may be entitled to be issued the awards. Despite the fact that Mr Flori did not make his request for the awards until after he resigned as a police officer, there is a connection between his complaint and his work. If it was not for his work, Mr Flori would not have been able to have made the request for the awards, being the request that was the subject of the Commissioner's decision. It is that decision which is at the heart of the complaint.

64. [64]
    In addition, the Respondents do not suggest what other area of activity in which discrimination is prohibited, contained in ch 2 of the ADA, under which the complaint falls.

65. [65]
    For these reasons, the fact that Mr Flori did not make the request for the awards until after his employment ended, which was then followed by the Commissioner's decision to defer making a final decision on the issuing of the awards - being the decision at the heart of the complaint - cannot deprive that complaint of being properly described as '… relating to work or the work-related area.'

66. [66]
    My opinion is that the complaint is a work‑related matter within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the ADA. The delegate of the Human Rights Commissioner was correct, in the exercise of the discretion contained in s 166(1)(a) of the ADA, to refer the complaint to the Commission. For this reason, I reject the Respondents' application.

67. [67]
    Mr Flori's claim will proceed to a resumed hearing before me.

68. [68]
    At the commencement of the hearing on 8 December 2021, Mr Flori indicated that he intended that an affidavit he filed on 6 December 2021 was to be his evidence‑in‑chief in respect of his claim.^[29] The Respondents indicated that they had no objection to that affidavit being admitted and for that affidavit to be Mr Flori's evidence‑in‑chief, subject to the objections they had to part of its content and to one of the exhibits.^[30] Mr Flori filed another affidavit on 18 January 2022 to which the Respondents also indicated they had some objection.

69. [69]
    To streamline the hearing and determination of Mr Flori's claim, I will require the Respondents to file and serve any objections they have to Mr Flori's affidavits filed on 6 December 2021 and on 18 January 2022, the reasons for those objections and any submissions in support of those reasons by a specified date.

70. [70]
    I will give Mr Flori the opportunity to file and serve any responses to those objections and any submissions in support of his responses.

71. [71]
    Unless otherwise ordered, I will make a decision about any objections on the papers.

Conclusion

72. [72]
    The question in the present proceeding was whether Mr Flori's complaint is a 'work‑related matter' within the meaning of s 166(1)(a) of the ADA.

73. [73]
    For the reasons I have given, Mr Flori's complaint was a 'work-related matter'.

Orders

74. [74]
    I make the following orders:

1. The Respondents' application in existing proceedings is dismissed.

2. The Respondents file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Complainant, a list of objections to the Complainant's affidavits filed on 6 December 2021 and 18 January 2022 ('the Complainant's affidavits'), reasons for the objections and any submissions in support of those objections by 4.00 pm on Friday, 25 February 2022.

3. The Complainant file in the Industrial Registry, and serve on the Respondents, his responses to the Respondents' objections to the Complainant's affidavits, and any submissions in support of those responses, by 4.00 pm on Friday, 11 March 2022.

4. Unless otherwise ordered, any objections to the Complainant's affidavits be determined on the papers.

5. The Complainant's claim for orders under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 be heard on a date to be fixed.