This case involved a claim that the complainant had been dismissed on the grounds of race and an imputed disability. The complainant alleged that the discrimination was direct and indirect and that she had also suffered victimisation and harassment which culminated in her dismissal. The respondent disputed the allegations and alleged that if they had occurred that they had fallen outside the cognisable period. The respondent does not deny that the complainant's employment was terminated but claimed that she was dismissed as she had not successfully completed her probation.

The Court indicated that the complainant in the first instance must establish primary or surrounding facts which lead to an inference that discrimination occurred before the burden of proof shifts