Anti-discrimination & Partnership Law Questions

This document discusses two separate law questions related to anti-discrimination and partnership. The first question deals with a case of discrimination at the workplace and the applicable laws that can be used to take legal action against the employer. The second question focuses on a partnership dispute and the legal actions that can be taken against a partner who has breached the partnership agreement. The document provides an analysis of the relevant laws and case laws to support the advice given to the individuals involved in these cases.

Anti-discrimination & Partnership
Law questions

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTION 1.............................................................................................................................3
QUESTION 2.............................................................................................................................5

QUESTION 1
Issue
This case is pertaining to the employee named Health working as an apprentice
mechanic for Not Dodgy Mechanics (NDM). The management of NDM is handled by Fred
Spofforth who is having a good reputation only with the British employees. Also, Fred
employ’s other staff as well who are Scottish and Irish just for showing his superiority. It also
makes use of the abusive slurs on daily basis against Health and other employees. Fred is in
favor of Brexit and distrusts the Scottish and Irish and is now very hostile to Scotland and
Ireland employees as they voted to remain in EU. One day when Heath as handling the front
desk, one of its best customers got angry with the Scottish accent and did not availed the
service. Over this Fred got very angry and started screaming on Health and even followed
him to his home and started called out people walking past asking them to throw rocks on
him. The next day, NDM terminated and after this incident, the Health sometimes requires
counselling and he remained unemployed. So, he engages lawyers who suggest Patrick who
is an Irish employee who was also subjected to abuse as a witness in this case. But on the
other hand, Fred threatens Patrick if he participates in the court action he would be fires from
the job. Thus, Heath and Patrick need advice on what actions can be taken against NDM or
Fred.
Law
The case is in respect to “The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991” which outlines the
areas where the discrimination is prohibited in the place of Queensland. The Queensland
Human Rights Commission (QHRC) undertakes and resolves the complaints of
discrimination and the other similar act of contravention leading to promoting human rights.
Based upon the case, there are number of laws which will be appliable to the case. First is as
per Chapter 2 Section 7 which states prohibited grounds of discrimination on the basis of
certain attributes which involves, gender identity, sex, race, trade union or lawful sexual
activity, religion, relationship status, political belief, impairment etc. or the association of the
person with any of such attributes. Apart from this, the Section 10 of Direct discrimination is
also applicable which accounts for the discrimination which happens on the basis of the
attribute if the person treats a person with an attribute which is less favorable in comparison
to another person with attribute and in this, the motive behind person discriminating is
irrelevant.

In addition to this, Section 15 of the Act is also applicable in regard to
discrimination in the workplace. As stated in this, the person must not be discriminated in any
variation in the terms of work or by limited the opportunities, in dismissing a staff or by
treating the person unfavorably. Section 25 states about the genuine occupational requirement
which is being imposed by the employers for meeting with the requirements of the position or
is already stated in the terms of contract. The case also having the Act of vilification as per
the Section 124A on the ground of race, religion or sexuality. At last, the Section 133 of the
Act on vicarious liability is also imposed by making the person liable for the contravention
being done by the person’s worker or agent.
Application
On making application to the applicable laws to the given case, it can be said that
Section 7 which states about the discrimination on the basis of the attributes can be
implemented to the fact that Health was discriminated because of the race and the political
belief. As per the case law of Rodriguez Rivas v Allerton Investments Pty Ltd [1997] QADT
6, in which the workers were discriminated on being Spanish and treating them less favorably
at work. Therefore, the Heath can under this section, can get reimbursement for hurt and
humiliation by the Tribunal. According to Ardeshirian, S. v Robe River Iron Associates
[1993] FCA 517 and Wardley v Ansett Transport, pertaining to direct discrimination. In this
case law is based on the verbal abuse and racist remarks made by the employees and
employers. In the final decision made by federal court of Australia to pay the employee the
stated amount.
In regard to Section 15, NDM terminated Health the very next day of the incident
without any notice. The policy of the organization states that it will require 2 written
warnings before terminating an employment which was not followed by Fred who was given
responsibility by Lord Buckethead. As per the case law X. v. The Commonwealth 1999,
genuine occupational requirement was not provided clearly then this accounts for
discrimination as per the High Court of Australia. Section 124A of vilification pertaining to
Anderson v Thompson [2001], using abusive language with force which can be overheard by
the others nearly is found to be racial vilification by the supreme court which was same done
by Fred to Health. At last, based on Section 133, Lord Buckethead is also responsible for the
termination of the Health and the zero tolerance practices in the work areas and the
responsibility of which was handed over to Fred. Richardson v Oracle Corporation Australia
Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 82 of the vicarious liability will be imposed on NDM for not
following the practices and threatening Patrick.

Conclusion
It can be inferred from the above that both Health and Patrick can file a complaint
against the Fred and NDM and can ask for damages. According to Section 136, a complaint
needed to be made in writing with reasonably sufficient information about the alleged Act,
stating the complainant’s address for service and should be lodged with commissioner pr sent
by post to the same. Also, the both of them requires to file the complaint within 1 year of the
alleged contravention Act but the commissioner may accept the complaint the after 1 year if
the complainant has good cause. Therefore, after the complaint is proven, the Tribunal
according to Section 209, can order the respondent not to commit the same again or may ask
to pay Health specific amount within the specified time for losses caused by contravention.
Order might make company or Fred apologize in public and paying damages for offence,
humiliation, embarrassment suffered by the person by the Tribunal.
QUESTION 2
Issue
The situation given in the case is that Health started his own business in partnership
with Victor and establishes the lawn mowing business. They created a partnership deed and
named the business as HV Partners (HVP). Health becomes unwell during the year but still
manages the lawn mowing work but neglects the bookkeeping. He returned at the end of the
financial year, at which point the business was struggling and reported loss for the first year.
On checking the financial details, Health notes a larger transaction of $50000 from the usual
supplier of the lawnmowing equipment. On getting information from the Don, Health got to
know that Victor purchased expensive ride on lawn mower. On making further investigation,
the Victor, has set up a side business for variety of golf courses for which ride on mower is
necessary and is engaged by Keith as club gardener. Pertaining to this, Health needs advice
about the legal action it can take against Victor and will he be liable for the ride on
lawnmower.
Law
The partnership of the business in Queensland is regulated under the Partnership Act
1891 which states about the liabilities of the firm and the partners. As per Section 12, every
partner of the firm is liable jointly with the other partners in regard to all the debts and
obligations pertaining to the firm. The section 32 states about the accountability of the
partners for the profits made privately. In this, every partner must account to the firm in terms
of any benefit which is generated without the consent of the other partners. Also, as defined

in Section 33 of the Act, if a partner without having the consent of the other partners of the
firm carries out eth similar business of the same nature and competing with the firm then the
partner is liable to account for and pay all the profits made by him or her from that business.
In addition to this, the Section 38 of the dissolution of the partnership can be added on the
grounds that the partner other than the suing partner willfully commits the breach of
partnership deed or puts himself or herself into matter relating to the business that makes it
reasonably impractical for the other partner to carry out the business with the partner.
Section 17 is also applicable which states that the partners can even sue the other partner
personally for the expenses he incurred outside his or her legal capacity.
Application
On applying the above stated laws on the current given case study, it can be said that
there are various measures being available to Health for taking actions against Victor. As per
the Dubai Aluminium v Salaam [2003] 2 A.C. 366, drafting an agreement which is fraudulent
in nature in the ordinary course of business makes the firm liable but in regard to the act done
by the partner without the knowledge of the other partner then the partners are liable jointly.
Also, in respect to Section 32 and in reference to case law Birtchnell v. Equity Trustees,
Executors and Agency Co. Ltd. (1929), 42 C.L.R. 384, the partners are liable to account for
and disclose eth profits it has generated from the usage of the funds of eth partnership
business. Thus, in this case, Victor has started his own business which is similar in nature to
the partnership business and has used eth funds of the firm to make purchases. Therefore, it is
the responsibility of the Victor to pay all the profits made.
This can be further referred with the case law Fleming v. McKechnie (1905), 25
N.Z.L.R. 216 which states that the partner engaging into the business which is not similar to
the same partnership business nature then the profits are not required to be accounted for. The
case law Wray v. Hutchinson (1834) according to which the partner fails to meet with the
duties stated in the partnership deed. Also, under the situation where it becomes practically
impossible for the other partner to carry out the business and make profits which can be
referred through the case law Handyside v. Campbell (1901). In addition to this, Victor
carried out eth activities outside his legal capacity as every transaction of more than $10000
requires to be agreed by both the partners.
Conclusion
It can be concluded from the above analysis, that Health is not under any obligation
or liability for the contract for the ride on lawnmower as the Victor has carried out this out of
his legal capacity as it was stated in eth partnership agreement that any amount exceeding

$10000 requires the consent of both the partners. And the breach of this, makes Victor
personally liable for the expenses incurred. In reference to the case of Scotts and Momentum
Production Pty Ltd v Lewarne [2009], Health can also take action against the Victor for his
wrongful deed and for breach of the partnership agreement. Thus, Victor is having the
obligation to account for the profits and the other benefits he has derived without taking the
consent of the Heath from the use of partnership property and assets and can dissolve the
partnership as it has become nearly impossible to carry out the business with Victor any
longer. Also, Victor is also required to borne his share of loss pertaining to that financial year
of the partnership business as every partner is jointly liable for the debts and obligation of the
business incurred while being the partner of the same. Thus, these are the certain actions
which can be undertaken by Health in order control the situation and reduce his liability
which incurred because of Victor.