van Royden v The State of New South Wales (Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales) [2022] NSWCATAD 190

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: van Royden v The State of New South Wales (Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales) [2022] NSWCATAD 190 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 9 June 2022 Decision date: 09 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: D Sloan, Principal Member Decision: Leave under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 for Mr van Royden to proceed with his Complaint is refused Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination – equal opportunity – leave required for complaint to proceed – principles applying to grant of leave Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ss 49B, 49M, 92, 93A, 96 Cases Cited: Bacirongo v ACL Pty Ltd [2011] NSWADT 12 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 van Royden v The State of NSW (Transport for NSW) [2019] NSWCATAD 262 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Procedural rulings Parties: Roy van Royden (Applicant) The State of New South Wales (Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales) (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: Applicant (Self-represented) Legal, Department of Communities and Justice (Respondent) File Number(s): 2021/00329955 Publication restriction: No

REASONS FOR DECISION 1. On 3 March 2021, Roy van Royden made a complaint to Anti-Discrimination NSW ("ADNSW") against the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales, [1] alleging in effect but not directly that he had been discriminated against in the provision of goods and services, on the ground of disability ("Complaint"). On 5 October 2021 the President of ADNSW ("President"), through her delegate, declined the Complaint under s 92(1)(a)(vi) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ("Act"). 2. Mr van Royden wishes to pursue the Complaint before the Tribunal, for which he needs the leave of the Tribunal pursuant to s 96(1) of the Act. He seeks that leave. 3. At Mr van Royden's request, and with the Respondent's consent, Mr van Royden's application for leave has been determined "on the papers". 4. For the reasons that follow, I have decided not to grant leave for the Complaint to proceed before the Tribunal.