where a complainant lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner (NT) under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT) alleging sexual harassment and discrimination
Quick Take
1Section 65(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1992 (NT) confers a broad power or discretion on the Commissioner, confined only by the subject matter, scope and purpose of the Act, and does not require the 'rigid application' approach from Re Commonwealth; Ex parte Marks even where the delay exceeds a decade — all relevant factors must be considered.
2It is open to the Commissioner, in exercising the s 65(2) discretion, to have regard to the public interest, the objects of the Act, the seriousness of the allegations, societal and cultural factors bearing on the complainant's delay, and whether prejudice to respondents is attributable to their own conduct, provided the reasoning is logical and intelligible.
3A decision to accept a complaint approximately 10 years out of time was not legally unreasonable where the delegate considered all relevant factors — including length of delay, explanation for delay across the entire period, attributability of delay, prejudice to respondents, and public interest — and provided detailed, logically structured reasons, even though other decision-makers may well have reached a different conclusion.
