DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION v ATKINS [1989] NSWCA 241

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF EDUCATION v ATKINS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY (1), CLARKE (2) AND MEAGHER (3) JJA 10 July 1989, 21 July 1989

[1989] NSWCA 241

Equal Opportunity Tribunal — Application for prohibition to restrain proceeding on ground of wrongful admission of evidence — Complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation in public high school — Power of Tribunal in respect of reception of evidence and procedure wide and flexible — Need not decide when the evidence is received, whether evidence is probative and whether it will act on it — Whether need to indicate to parties in due course on what evidence it may act — Tribunal not in this case committed to acting on the evidence received by it — Role of Chairman and Members referred to — What happened before complainants employed at school may be probative of planned discrimination or victimisation — Need to deal with complaints without unnecessary delay and cost. ORDERS Application refused with costs.

Mahoney JA Rosaleen Atkins and Jacqueline Navin were science teachers at GymeaHigh School. They made complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board. The complaints were referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. During the hearing of the complaints by the Tribunal, they tendered as evidence statements by Pamela Anne Wilson, Edith McNally, Helen Margaret Simmelhaig and Diana Jane Griffin. The reception of those statements into evidence was objected to by the defendant before the Tribunal, the Director General of Education ("the Director').

On 21 and 22 February 1989 his Honour Judge Graham, Chairman of the Tribunal, ruled that the statements should be admitted into evidence.

The Director has sought prohibition against the Tribunal on the ground that the reception of that evidence indicates that the Tribunal is acting, or proposes to act, beyond its jurisdiction.