Gellel v GIO General Ltd [2012] NSWADT 134

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Gellel v GIO General Ltd [2012] NSWADT 134 Hearing dates: 5 June 2012 Decision date: 05 July 2012 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave is refused for the applicant's complaints of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and disability discrimination to proceed Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Jones and Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388. Category: Principal judgment Parties: Amanda Gellel (Applicant) GIO General Ltd (Respondent) Representation: A Gellel (Applicant in person) Turks Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 121061

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1The issue in these proceedings is whether the Tribunal should give Ms Gellel permission for her complaints of sexual harassment, sex discrimination and disability discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act) to proceed. The complaints, which are against her workers compensation insurer, GIO General Ltd (GIO), were declined by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance. 2Ms Gellel needs to obtain the Tribunal's permission before any of her complaints can proceed: AD Act, s 96. The Tribunal has a discretion to grant or refuse leave for the complaints to go ahead and will be guided by what is fair and just in the circumstances: Jones and Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388. When deciding whether to grant leave, the Tribunal may have regard to the grounds on which the President may decline a complaint under s 92(1) of the AD Act, including that the complaint is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance. In this case I have decided to refuse leave for each of the complaints to proceed. 3Ms Gellel participated in the hearing by phone. She was able to make oral submissions however she felt too stressed to stay on the phone to hear the submissions from the GIO's representative. In those circumstances I directed the GIO to file and serve an outline of their submissions and gave Ms Gellel two weeks to respond. Ms Gellel responded by providing copies of documents she considered relevant to her complaint.