1. In their written submissions both parties concede that this matter and the SAET matter arise from substantially the same facts, and there is an overlap of the witnesses likely to be called at full hearing. The respondent contends these factors are "not unusual" and do not mean that the Tribunal should find that it would be more appropriate or expeditious for this matter to be transferred to the SAET.
2. On the basis of the common factual background of this matter and the SAET matter, I am satisfied that these proceedings include or relate to matters that may be the subject of proceedings under another Act in respect of which SAET has jurisdiction and that the grounds for making an order under s 98B are made out.
3. It is appropriate or expeditious for the proceedings to be transferred, to minimise the inevitable myriad inefficiencies otherwise associated with the same facts needing to be established in 2 different Tribunals and to minimise the inconvenience to witnesses who might otherwise need to attend in the separate Tribunals for (at least) cross-examination in each Tribunal, if not also to be examined in chief in each Tribunal (noting the respondent's submission that evidence in chief may be able to be tendered in documentary form - paragraph 16.9 of the respondent's written submissions).
4. The respondent relied on the decision of Mikhail Marchenko v South Australia Police [2020] SAET 168 at [52] (Marchenko) for the proposition that this Tribunal is "the ordinary forum in which complaints of discrimination under the EO Act are heard and determined" - par 16.3 of the respondent's written submissions. The full relevant paragraph of Marchenko reads:

52. Although in certain instances the Commissioner for Equal Opportunity could still refer a complaint to SAET, or SACAT could transfer proceedings before it to SAET, the ordinary course of a referral of a complaint under the EO Act, as amended by the Statues Amendment (SACAT) Act 2019, is that from 2 September 2019 SACAT would hear and determine such proceedings. The rationale for the continued role that SAET may play appears to be that if there are other proceedings under other legislation to which SAET has jurisdiction - for example an employment matter - and where the EO proceedings relate to that matter in some material way (the same litigants and same or related events, for example) then SAET may be the more appropriate forum, given the former's expertise in employment litigation, to hear and determine all issues.

5. I am of the view that the Marchenko decision contemplates the transfer to SAET of SACAT proceedings in circumstances such as exist here. In Marchenko there was no employment relationship between the complainant and the respondent, unlike in this matter. Nothing in the Marchenko decision precludes the transfer of these proceedings to the SAET.
6. There is no requirement for a matter in this Tribunal and a matter in the SAET to involve identical parties or identical representation before this Tribunal can transfer a matter to the SAET. The degree of factual overlap between this matter and the SAET matter in my view satisfies both limbs of s 98B. It is not a bar to the transfer that the legal issues to be established and/or the precise remedy to be sought in each matter may differ, when substantially the same broad factual background will be relevant in each matter (as to which, I accept the applicant's written submissions of 7 August 2023 at [32] and the paragraphs that follow after para 32).
7. I will order that these proceedings be transferred to the South Australian Employment Tribunal pursuant to s 98B of the Equal Opportunity Act.

1. These proceedings, 2023/SA001172, are transferred to the South Australian Employment Tribunal pursuant to s 98B of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984.