Thamotharampillai v National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters Ltd [2019] NSWCATAD 60

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Thamotharampillai v National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters Ltd [2019] NSWCATAD 60 Hearing dates: 5 March 2019 Date of orders: 15 April 2019 Decision date: 15 April 2019 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Dr J Lucy, Senior Member Decision: Leave to proceed with the complaint of victimisation is refused. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – Where complaint of victimisation declined by President of Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance – Application for leave to proceed with complaint -- Whether fair or just to grant leave Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Bacirongo v ACL Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 12 Dezfouli v Health Care Complaints Commission [2018] NSWCATAD 245 Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Pribicevic v State of New South Wales (Department of Family and Community Services) [2014] NSWCATAD 94 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Thiyagarajah Thamotharampillai (applicant) National Accreditation Authority of Translators and Interpreters Ltd (respondent) Representation: Counsel:

Solicitors: Applicant in person Meyer Vandenberg (respondent) File Number(s): 2019/17028 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. Mr Thamotharampillai complained that the respondent ("NAATI") had victimised him for lodging a complaint of race discrimination with the Anti-Discrimination Board ("Board") and pursuing it in the Tribunal. The race discrimination complaint was that NAATI had failed him in an accreditation test in 2016 due to his race. 2. After the parties had settled their dispute about race discrimination, Mr Thamotharampillai wrote to the Board again, claiming that the two markers of his 2016 test were deliberately failing candidates to secure their own positions as interpreters, which was a conflict of interest. He said that he had raised this with NAATI, but NAATI did not take any action and that he had been treated unfairly and victimised by NAATI. 3. The President of the Board ("President") declined his complaint of victimisation as lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act), s 92(1)(a)(i). 4. I have decided not to give Mr Thamotharampillai permission for his victimisation complaint to go ahead in the Tribunal. It is lacking in substance and it would not be fair or just for it to proceed.