Dapontes v State of Queensland and Anor (No 3) [2011] QCAT 718

CITATION: Dapontes v State of Queensland and Anor (No 3) [2011] QCAT 718 PARTIES: Alexis Dapontes (Applicant) v State of Queensland (First Respondent) Laurelle Nielson (Second Respondent) APPLICATION NUMBER: ADL045-11 MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters HEARING DATE: On the papers HEARD AT: Brisbane DECISION OF: C Endicott, Senior Member DELIVERED ON: 15 December 2011 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane ORDERS MADE: 1. Alexis Dapontes must file in the Tribunal and send to the respondents care of the Crown Law Office amended contentions setting out her contentions restricted to the referred complaint of unlawful discrimination based on race in the provision of goods and services by the respondents and victimisation by 4:00pm 20 January 2012. 2. The respondents may file in the Tribunal and send to Alexis Dapontes their response to the amended contentions by 4:00pm 9 February 2012. 3. The matter is listed for a Directions Hearing in Brisbane at 2:30pm on 13 February 2012. CATCHWORDS: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – where contentions contained irrelevant facts and allegations to the referred complaint – where it was inappropriate to proceed to a compulsory conference on unsatisfactory contentions -- 1 of 3 -- 2 APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any): This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act). REASONS FOR DECISION [1] The background to this complaint can be read in paragraphs 1 and 2 of the reasons in ADL044-11. [2] Relevant to this proceeding, Alexis Dapontes lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commission on 8 November 2010 alleging that the respondents had unlawfully discriminated against her based on her race in the manner in which they provided goods and services. She also alleged that she had been subjected to victimisation by the respondents after she had complained about the respondents’ conduct. [3] I am prepared to adopt the Commission’s summary of allegations as an accurate summary of the referred complaint in this proceeding. [4] The summary of alleged racial discrimination is as follows: “On 7 November 2010 when Alexis Dapontes went to the hospital to see her father, Laurelle Neilson said ‘I was not allowed to speak Greek or feed my dad Greek food’.” [5] The summary of the alleged victimisation is as follows: “On 7 November 2010 Laurelle Neilson said I also had to withdraw my complaints with the ADC or she would not allow me to see my dad and she would call security to physically harm me and to remove me. I said I’m not withdrawing and Laurelle Neilson then called 4 huge PCH Security to remove me from ward and PCH’.” [6] Directions were made in this proceeding which required Alexis Dapontes to file her contentions about the allegations she had made that the respondents had contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991. [7] The contentions filed by Alexis Dapontes in this proceeding were unsatisfactory as was the case in ADL044-11. She had incorporated into her contentions all the complaints made by her and also the complaint made by her mother. There was no attempt made to distinguish between the four separate complaints. The respondent, the State of Queensland, is common to all four complaints but the other individual respondents are not common to all four complaints. [8] As explained in ADL044-11, the contentions filed in this proceeding as well as the other proceedings contain allegations that are not part of the respective referred complaints. Those allegations are irrelevant unless leave is granted for the complaint to be amended. It is not appropriate to proceed to a conference with the contentions in a confusing and unclear state. It will detract from the opportunities to resolve the complaint at the conference if the parties must at the outset of the conference identify -- 2 of 3 -- 3 which allegations are relevant and which are outside the scope of the referred complaint. [9] From an initial consideration of the filed contentions, it would appear that the following paragraphs wholly or partly contain allegations or information that are not part of the referred complaint in this particular matter: paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46 and 48. [10] The filed contentions do not provide the tribunal with a basis to consider the referred complaint. The contentions must set out the facts relevant to the referred complaint and must only contain information and allegations that stay within the terms of the referred complaint. For that reason, I have made directions to Alexis Dapontes to file amended contentions restricted to the referred complaint in this proceeding of unlawful discrimination based on race in the provision of goods and services by the respondents and victimisation. [11] Similar directions have been made in ADL043-11 and ADL044-11 based on similar reasons as set out here. -- 3 of 3 --