TF v ZZI [2025] TASCAT 194

Anti-Discrimination - Review of dismissal - Legal representation.

Anti-Discrimination Act 1998; ss 64, 71, 79A, 105.

Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020; ss 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 98.

Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, [1998] HCA 28.

The decision has been anonymised for the purpose of publication.

1. The complainant [TF] made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (the ADC) against the respondent [ZZI]. The complaint which alleged that the complainant had been victimised by the respondent was lodged with the ADC on 22 August 2024 and accepted for investigation on 3 October 2024.
2. On 8 April 2025, the ADC dismissed the complainant's complaint on the basis that it did not relate to discrimination or prohibited conduct pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (the ADA).
3. On 8 April 2025, pursuant to s 71(3) of the ADA, the complainant sought to review the ADC's dismissal of his complaint.
4. As the complainant's application for review was made in writing, and was made within 28 days of his receipt of the ADC's decision to dismiss his complaint, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine this review.
5. An initial directions conference before a case officer was conducted in the Tribunal on 13 June 2025. During this directions conference the respondent made application to be legally represented. The complainant indicated that he objected to leave being granted to the respondent for this purpose.
6. At a directions conference before a Tribunal member on 17 July 2025 directions were given with regard to the provision of written submissions in relation to the complainant's objection to the respondent having legal representation.
7. By 19 September 2025 the timetable for the provision of written submissions had been complied with.
8. The following are my reasons for dismissing the complainant's objection to the grant of leave for the respondent to be legally represented.

1. In his written submissions objecting to the granting of leave for the respondent to be legally represented, the complainant asserted:

I write to formally object to the respondent being granted legal representation in this matter: While the Tribunal has discretion under section 98(1) of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (TASCAT Act), I submit that allowing such representation would be procedurally unfair, for the following reasons.

2. Thereafter, under a heading "Grounds for Objection", the complainant summarised his bases for the objection to the respondent being granted leave to have legal representation. These were summarised under the following headings:
   • Misleading Framing of ZZI's Conduct
   • Misleading Omission of ZZI's Offer to Vacate
   • Misleading Reason for Eviction - Concealment of Victimisation
   • Bias in selective disclosure to ADC
   • Misleading reliance on "Derance case" as rationale
3. The complainant submitted that the respondent's written submissions to the ADC included misleading omissions of material facts which significantly influenced the ADC's decision to dismiss the complaint. He respectfully contended that this conduct engaged s 105(b) of the ADA which provides:

(b) omit any matter from a statement knowing that without that matter the statement is misleading.

4. Under the heading "Conclusion" in his submissions of 17 July 2025, the complainant stated "in light of the above, the complainant submits that the respondent:

• Misled the ADC by omitting key dates, context, and communications
  • Selectively quoted from WhatsApp to frame the complainant unfairly
  • Failed to disclose her own role in prolonging maintenance issues and house tensions
  • Exploited post hoc grievances to justify an eviction rooted in retaliation

These omissions fall squarely under s.105(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1988 (Tas) and amount to procedural unfairness if the respondent is now granted legal representation based on a record distorted by these omissions.

5. In the respondent's reply to the complainant's submissions seeking the grant of leave for legal representation which were dated 19 September 2025, the respondent reiterated his objection to the respondent being granted leave for legal representation, reiterating that this should be excluded under s 105(b) of the ADA on the basis of misleading and deceptive conduct across proceedings.
6. He also provided a number of direct responses to the complainant's written submissions which are discussed subsequently in this decision.

1. In the respondent's written submissions of 22 August 2025 the respondent submitted the following reasons for the grant of leave for the respondent to be legally represented pursuant to s 79A of the ADA.
   1. This matter is complex involving complex factual allegations, multiple tenants, legal timelines, voluminous evidentiary material and activity prior to the ADT involvement.
   2. The claimant's 'Objection to Legal Representation' contains serious allegations against the respondent under s105(b) the Act.
   3. The issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the decision of the ADC to dismiss the complaint was the correct decision. The allegations serve to introduce and widen issues over and above the question of victimisation which was the issue for determination by the ADC. Consequently, proceedings are at risk of becoming protracted.
   4. Legal representation will assist the respondent as she has work commitments and finds it difficult to attend the Tribunal for directions hearings and interlocutory matters.
   5. Due to the seriousness of the allegations, the respondent is also concerned about potential reputational damage and financial consequences.
   6. The respondent is experiencing stress due to these proceedings and is concerned about her capacity to adequately represent herself. The interests of justice and fairness favour allowing representation in such circumstances.
   7. There is a long history between the parties. In addition to the claim before the ADT, the claimant made a complaint against the respondent to the Tenants Union of Tasmania in approximately May/June 2023. The claim alleged that due to the verbal altercation between the claimant and Mr Zhao and Mr Zhao's offensive conduct towards the claimant, that she as landlord, failed to provide quiet enjoyment to the claimant in breach of the terms of his rental agreement. (NB/ the complaint was ultimately withdrawn by the claimant).
   8. The claimant also sent the respondent a letter of demand in July 2024 seeking compensation in the sum of $12,000 alleging that he had suffered a detriment and victimisation by the respondent.
   9. The involvement of a legal representative would assist in communication between the parties, particularly considering the long history between them and the current state of their relationship.
   10. Legal counsel would be able to assist the Tribunal identify and narrow the relevant issues and applicable legal principles and is likely to facilitate earlier and appropriate resolution of all preliminary matters relating to the application.
   11. The respondent's legal representative acknowledges the expectation of the Tribunal that legal counsel will conduct themselves and their client's case in such a way as to assist the Tribunal and to promote efficient pre-hearing procedures and hearings.
   12. It is not procedurally unfair to the claimant if leave is granted to the respondent, as the claimant is also able to be represented at the hearing of an inquiry pursuant to s79A(3) the Act.

1. The respondent's application for leave to be represented relates to legal representation in the review jurisdiction of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal - see Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 (the TASCAT Act), ss 74-78. Section 75(3) of the TASCAT Act provides that the complainants review of the dismissal of his complaint is to be a review by way of a re-hearing.
2. The complainant's application for the review of the dismissal of his complaint is not being dealt with pursuant to the original jurisdiction provisions of the TASCAT Act - ss 72-73. This is the jurisdictional aspect of the TASCAT Act which governs referrals for inquiry pursuant to s 78 of the ADA.
3. As the complainant correctly points out, representation in proceedings under the TASCAT Act are detailed in s 98 of the TASCAT Act which states:

(1) A party to proceedings is, subject to the provisions of a relevant Act, entitled to -

(a) appear personally; or

(b) be represented by an Australian legal practitioner; or

(c) with the leave of the Tribunal and subject to the Tribunal rules - be represented by another representative.

(2) Unless otherwise determined by the Tribunal, a person appearing before the Tribunal may be assisted by another person as a friend.

(3) A person may not act as a representative referred to in subsection (1)(b) or (c) in proceedings if -

(a) the person is an Australian legal practitioner whose practising certificate is suspended; or

(b) the person's name has been removed from the local roll, within the meaning of the Legal Profession Act 2007 , or on an equivalent roll under a law, of another State or a Territory, that corresponds to that Act; or

(c) the person is subject to disciplinary proceedings under the Legal Profession Act 2007 or a law, of another State or a Territory, that corresponds to that Act.

(4) The Tribunal may -

(a) appoint a person to act as guardian ad litem for a party; or

(b) appoint a person to represent a party; or

(c) order that a party be separately represented.

(5) In proceedings that directly, or significantly, affect a person who has not attained the age of 18 years and who is not a party to the proceedings, the Tribunal may -

(a) appoint a person to act as guardian ad litem for the person; or

(b) order that the person be separately represented.

1. Section 98(1) of the TASCAT Act clearly makes the provisions of the TASCAT Act subject to the provisions of the relevant Act, in this case the ADA.
2. With regard to legal representation in an inquiry, s 79A of the ADA states:

79A. Representation in inquiry > > (1) At any stage during the hearing of an inquiry, the Tribunal may permit a party to be represented or accompanied by another person and may withdraw that permission. > > (2) A party may be represented or accompanied by another person in an inquiry only with the permission of the Tribunal. > > (3) If the Tribunal gives permission for one party to be accompanied or represented by another person at the hearing of an inquiry, any other party taking part in the hearing may also be accompanied or represented by another person. > > (4) Section 98 of the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2020 does not apply in relation to a hearing of an inquiry.

3. The modern approach to statutory interpretation in Australia was stated as follows in Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority (1998) 194 CLR 355, [1998] HCA 28 at [69] per McHugh, Gummow, Kirby and Hayne JJ:

The primary object of statutory construction is to construe the relevant provisions so that it is consistent with the language and purpose of all of the provisions of the statute. The meaning of the provision must be determined "by reference to the language of the instrument viewed as a whole"....the process of construction must always begin by examining the context of the provision that is being construed.

4. Applying this statutory interpretation process, s 79A of the ADA which relates to representation in an Inquiry is clearly not relevant to s 98 of the TASCAT Act in so far as it relates to representation in a review of the dismissal of a complaint within the review jurisdiction of the TASCAT Act.
5. Although the complainant has correctly identified the relevancy of s 98 of the TASCAT Act, he is incorrect in his assertion that leave is required for the complainant to be represented in proceedings in the Tribunal by an Australian legal practitioner.
6. Section 98(1)(b) clearly provides that a party to a proceeding is "entitled" to be represented by an Australian legal practitioner.
7. Section 98(1)(c) does require the leave or permission of the Tribunal to allow a party to a proceeding to be represented by another representative. This other representative clearly does not include an Australian legal practitioner.
8. With the complainant's application for the review of his dismissal of his complaint being dealt with in the review provisions of the TASCAT Act and following the reasoning detailed above, the respondent is entitled to be represented by a legal practitioner.
9. In my view, this interpretation of s 98 is also supported by s 79A(4) of the ADA which clearly only excludes or makes it "subject to the provisions of a relevant act", the operation of s 98 of the TASCAT Act in relation to the requirement for leave for legal representation to be granted by the Tribunal in an inquiry. As previously stated in this decision, an inquiry under the ADA is dealt with within the original jurisdiction of the TASCAT Act.
10. Such an entitlement to representation by an Australian legal practitioner would also apply to the complainant if he chose to take that course.
11. Even if I am wrong as to the interpretation of this legislative scheme applying to reviews of dismissals under the ADA, and leave for legal representation is required, on all of the material before me, particularly for the reasons articulated by the respondent in its written submissions, I would grant the leave sought for the respondent to be represented in any event.
12. The Tribunal will benefit from the assistance of the respondent's legal practitioner in understanding what are clearly complex matters.
13. If leave is required for legal representation I grant that leave, which would entitle the complainant also to seek and obtain legal representation if he so desires.
14. A directions conference by telephone is listed for Monday 20 October, 2025 at 10.00am. Hearing notices will issue to the parties in due course.