Berry v Coops' Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 88

CITATION: Berry v Coops’ Pty Ltd [2015] QCAT 88 PARTIES: Amanda Berry (Applicant) v Coops’ Pty Ltd (Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: ADL091-14 MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: Acting Senior Member Endicott DELIVERED ON: 26 February 2015 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: The application by the respondent to change the date of the Compulsory Conference is refused. CATCHWORDS: ANTI DISCRIMINATION – where complaint referred to QCAT – where directions made for a compulsory conference to be held – where request made for change of date of the conference – where applicant in the complaint objected to a change of date – where no evidence that the respondent in the complaint could not attend on the set date – whether any persuasive grounds to change set date APPEARANCES: This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] A complaint made by Amanda Berry that she had been subjected to unlawful discriminatory conduct was referred to QCAT. Directions were made on 6 January 2015 and sent to the parties. One of the directions set the date for a compulsory conference on 31 March 2015. -- 1 of 2 -- 2 [2] On 19 February 2015 a barrister, who stated that he acted for the respondent, lodged an application for a change of date of the compulsory conference. This barrister asserted that the respondent had been granted leave to be represented in the proceeding. This was not correct as no application for leave had been filed by the respondent. [3] The barrister submitted that he was not able to attend the compulsory conference due to work commitments in a jurisdiction in New South Wales. He submitted that the respondent requested that the conference be rescheduled some time on or after 13 March 2015 to 13 April 2015 but not on 31 March 2015. [4] Ms Berry responded to the application for a change of date. She objected to any charge being made as the date set was the only date she could attend the conference due to university, work and work placement commitments. [5] The application was not made on the basis that the respondent was unable to attend the conference on the set date. The application was made on the basis that a barrister, who was advising the respondent, could not attend. Leave had not been sought for the respondent to be legally represented in the proceeding, although any such application had been directed to be filed by 23 January 2015. [6] The application did not disclose any persuasive grounds to change the date set for the conference. There was no evidence that the respondent could not attend on that date and there was evidence that the applicant would be disadvantaged if the date were to be changed. Even if leave were to be subsequently granted for the respondent to be legally represented, there were no grounds disclosed as to why another barrister could not as effectively represent the respondent at the conference as Mr See. [7] The application for a change of date was refused. -- 2 of 2 --