Equal Opportunity Tribunal of New South Wales CITATION: Mazenco -V- Kymfone Pty Ltd T/A L J Hooker Real Estate (Cronulla) [1998] NSWEOT COMPLAINANT: Christina Mazenco Kymfone Pty Ltd trading as L J Hooker Real Estate (Cronulla) RESPONDENT: David Ireland Alwin Hutchinson Kenneth Smith NUMBER: 220 of 1996 Mr Reginald Bartley AM ( Judicial Member ) TRIBUNAL: Ms L Nemeth de Bikal Mr L Lau GROUNDS OF COMPLAINT: Discrimination and sexual harassment in the provision of goods and services/accommodation DATES OF HEARING: 02/16/1998; 02/17/1998; 02/24/1998 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/24/1998 Complainant: Self-represented LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Respondent: Mr M Howlin Cassidy Gibson Howlin (Solicitor) JUDGMENT IN FAVOUR OF: Respondent TRIBUNAL: On 4 November l994 the Complainant approached L J. Hooker Cronulla seeking accommodation . She inspected the property at 5/25 Tullimbar Road, Cronulla. On 5.11.94 the Complainant took a lease of the premises for 6 months (ending 5. May, l995) The lease contained a 'carry-over' clause and also a clause enabling the landlord to terminate the lease on 5 May l995 providing fourteen days notice was given. The Respondent gave fourteen days notice prior to 5 May l995 to terminate the lease. After a hearing at the Residential Tenancies Tribunal which continued over a period of seven days, the Complainant left the premises on 2l September l995. On l1 December 1995 the Complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board against L J Hooker Cronulla and employees (Messrs David Ireland , Alwin Hutchinson and Kenneth Smith. The Business name 'L J.Hooker Real Estate Cronulla' was owned by Kymfone Pty Ltd, which company was also joined , in addition to the licensee Mr. Hatten. Over the period of the tenancy the Complainant claimed she was discriminated against by all Respondents and the matters complained of are set out in her letter of l9 December 1995 The Complainant appeared for herself and the Tribunal had great difficulty in identifying on what basis the Complainant was discriminated against , and of course whether or not she was discriminated against. The main thing she maintained throughout was that during the tenancy she disagreed in the manner the Respondents treated her . She termed their conduct sexual harassment It was not until the Anti-Discrimination Act l997 No 9 (which was assented to on 20 May l997) came into operation that the meaning of the term 'sexual harassment' was ascribed a meaning in the law of New South Wales (section 22A) and then it became unlawful to sexually harass another person in the course of providing or offering accommodation to that other person (section 22G). The law as applicable to this complaint is that which can be gleaned from O'Callaghan v Loder [l983] 3 NSWLR 89 . Of course, that case concerned the relationship of employer and employee which is quite different to this case. In this case once the Complainant entered into a tenancy agreement for the premises. She was not discriminated against in the letting thereof. She complained she could not get repairs done, but it seems the premises were not in good order when the complainant signed the lease after an inspection, nor were the premises generally in good order. There was no evidence , if it was relevant, that the complainant was discriminated against in respect of not having repairs done. The Complainant also complained against the fact she was discriminated against when she tried to get new premises by the Respondents. The respondent said the premises were beyond the Complainant's financial ability and that was the case. The evidence show she was not discriminated against in this matter. The Complainant had an apparent friendly relationship with Mr. Ireland who assisted her throughout the period of the tenancy. He even allowed her to sleep at his premises on one occasion when she complained to him she could not get into her rented premises due to lock trouble. This was at 5 a.m. in the morning after she had spent the night sleeping in her car. The Complainant in a document headed "amended Points of Claim" has ticked many boxes e.g. sex, marital status, age, race, etc. as the basis of her claim. As Mr Howlin (who appeared for the Respondent) stated she probably had ticked all the boxes to ensure she did not miss out on any ground. It does appear the form which is designed for simplicity needs to be reconsidered to prevent this from happening again and provide for the insertion of grounds on which the complaint is made. The Complainant has also complained she was discriminated against on the ground of 'disability' or 'perceived disability'. The Tribunal cannot identify either the disability or perceived disability from the evidence. Notwithstanding if there was evidence there was a disability or perceived disability the evidence does not disclose any discrimination in this area. The Complainant states she has had advice from at least 20 members of the legal profession. Whether all this advice clarifies things for her we cannot say, but certainly did nothing to clarify matters for the Tribunal. Mr Howlin did his best to ensure that throughout the whole period of the hearing the Complainant was allowed to put everything before the Tribunal she wanted to, even to the stage of admitting evidence obtained over the phone so a witness would not have to come from Canberra. The Tribunal has carefully considered all the evidence including all the documents of the evidence and listened carefully to the Complainant's evidence and her address and it has come to the conclusion that the Complainant has not been discriminated against on any ground. The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.