Southey v Australian Press Council [2020] NSWCATAD 241

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Southey v Australian Press Council [2020] NSWCATAD 241 Hearing dates: 10 September 2020 Date of orders: 2 October 2020 Decision date: 02 October 2020 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C A Ludlow, Senior Member Decision: Leave for the complaint to proceed is refused. Catchwords: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - application for leave to proceed with complaint – victimisation – causation – lack of evidence Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 Prakash v Bobb Borg Pty Ltd [1999] NSW ADT 73 Southey v The Australian Press Council [2020] NSWCATAD 177 Texts Cited: None cited Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Claire Southey (Applicant) Australian Press Council (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self Represented) Respondent (No Appearance) File Number(s): 2020/00253015 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background 1. Ms Southey, the applicant in these proceedings, seeks the leave of the Tribunal to proceed with a complaint under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the AD Act). On 26 January 2020 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW received a complaint under the AD Act from Ms Southey against the respondent, the Australian Press Council (APC). The applicant alleged that the respondent victimised her by releasing her name and other confidential information to journalists which resulted in her being identified in three articles published in The Australian newspaper. 2. The President declined the complaint on 27 July 2020 primarily because: 1. Ms Southey had not provided any information capable of establishing that the respondent released confidential information relating to her identity either because she had complained about discrimination or at all 2. She had not established actual detriment 3. She had not established causation. 1. On 17 August 2020 Ms Southey requested that the complaint be referred to this Tribunal under s 93A of the AD Act. 2. The leave application was listed for hearing on 10 September 2020 at 11 am by telephone. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the respondent. The law firm listed on the papers as representing the respondent was contacted, was advised that the hearing was being conducted at that time and requested that the relevant solicitor dial into the telephone hearing. After waiting a reasonable period of time, I proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the respondent.