section 75(3)(a) of the Act. The examination included interviewing the parties, requesting and receiving submissions from the parties, consideration of those submissions, and consideration of relevant authorities and the provisions of the Act. The Delegate’s decision was conveyed in writing to the parties on (AB3) - and that decision was to discontinue the complaints on the basis that they failed to disclose any prohibited “… conduct pursuant to section 102(1)(d) of the Act. …” 3.8 The decision described in paragraph 2.7 was appealed by the Complainants to the at on . 3.9 After hearing submissions and considering the manner in which the Delegate investigated the complaints, the Learned Magistrate formed the views that the Delegate may have been biased virtue of her identity and her upbringing as “by a female” (p.7 Transcript of Proceedings No. 20212873) and that the Delegate’s investigation was inadequate (p.8 Transcript of Proceedings). On the Presiding Magistrate made the following orders (my brackets): (1) The Appeal is allowed. (2) The Decision of the Delegate of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to discontinue the complaints is quashed. (3) The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for further investigation. (4) I recommend that the Commissioner allocate the investigation to a Delegate other than (the original Delegate) for further investigation. (p.10 Transcript of Proceedings) 3.10 I gave the parties until to make further submissions on the matter. The First and Second Respondents took advantage of this opportunity and the Complainants elected to rely on their existing submissions. 4. FINDINGS 4.1 In further investigating the complaints pursuant to the Order of the Learned Magistrate I may conduct a investigation” “thorough pursuant to section 75 of the Act or consider whether it is
section 75(3)(a) of the Act. The examination included interviewing the parties, requesting and receiving submissions from the parties, consideration of those submissions, and consideration of relevant authorities and the provisions of the Act. The Delegate’s decision was conveyed in writing to the parties on (AB3) - and that decision was to discontinue the complaints on the basis that they “… failed to disclose any prohibited conduct …” pursuant to section 102(1)(d) of the Act. 3.8 The decision described in paragraph 2.7 was appealed by the Complainants to the at on . 3.9 After hearing submissions and considering the manner in which the Delegate investigated the complaints, the Learned Magistrate formed the views that the Delegate may have been biased “by virtue of her identity and her upbringing as a female” (p.7 Transcript of Proceedings No. 20212873) and that the Delegate’s investigation was inadequate (p.8 Transcript of Proceedings). On the Presiding Magistrate made the following orders (my brackets): (1) The Appeal is allowed. (2) The Decision of the Delegate of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner to discontinue the complaints is quashed. (3) The matter is remitted to the Commissioner for further investigation. (4) I recommend that the Commissioner allocate the investigation to a Delegate other than (the original Delegate) for further investigation. (p.10 Transcript of Proceedings) 3.10 I gave the parties until to make further submissions on the matter. The First and Second Respondents took advantage of this opportunity and the Complainants elected to rely on their existing submissions. 4. FINDINGS 4.1 In further investigating the complaints pursuant to the Order of the Learned Magistrate I may conduct a “thorough investigation” pursuant to section 75 of the Act or consider whether it is
2004_kennedy_ingham_ntaust.docx