Radvili v Ranstad Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 58

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Radvili v Ranstad Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 58 Hearing dates: 22 March 2016 Date of orders: 30 March 2016 Decision date: 30 March 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Scahill, Senior Member Decision: Leave refused Catchwords: Race discrimination Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Miller v RailCorp [2008] NSWADT 274 Purvis v. State of NSW [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Ravil Radvili (Applicant) Ranstad Australia Pty Ltd (First Respondent) Department of Family and Community Services (Housing NSW) (Second Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ravil Radvili (Applicant in person) Mr Shuttleworth (First Respondent) Ms Soin (Second Respondent) File Number(s): 1610056

Reasons for decision

Background

The Application 1. Mr Radvili ("the Applicant") brought proceedings for leave pursuant to section 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ("the Act") arising out of the President declining his complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board ("ADB"). 2. The Applicant's complaints were of race discrimination (under sections 7, 8, 52 and 53 of the Act). 3. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 92(1) (a). The issue in this case is whether it is fair and just for the Tribunal to give Mr Radvili permission (or "leave") for his complaint to go ahead: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96. Mr Radvili bears the onus of persuading the Tribunal that leave should be granted. I have decided not to give Mr Radvili permission for his complaint to go ahead because there is clear evidence that issues about his performance and failure to follow directions were the real reasons for the termination of his placement. 4. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the application for leave on 22 March 2016. Mr Radvili represented himself and each of the Respondents was represented. 5. The Tribunal declines to grant leave for the race discrimination complaint to proceed against either Respondent for the following reasons.