Razaghi v Director General, Department of Health and NSW Medical Board [2005] NSWADT 125

CITATION: Razaghi v Director General, Department of Health and NSW Medical Board [2005] NSWADT 125 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division APPLICANT Asaad Razaghi PARTIES: FIRST RESPONDENT Director General, Department of Health SECOND RESPONDENT NSW Medical Board FILE NUMBER: 991070 HEARING DATES: 4/05/2005 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 05/04/2005 DATE OF DECISION: 06/08/2005

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Nemeth de Bikal L - Non Judicial Member; Mooney L - Non Judicial Member APPLICATION: Determination of period and scope of complaint - Disqualification for bias MATTER FOR DECISION: Preliminary matter LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Razaghi v Director General New South Wales Department of Health and Anor [2002] NSW ADT 4; CASES CITED: Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy and Ors (2000) 205 CLR 337; Re JRL ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342 APPLICANT In person REPRESENTATION: FIRST RESPONDENT C Ronalds, senior counsel SECOND RESPONDENT G Furness, counsel ORDERS: Orders made 4 May 2005; 1. The applicant's application for the Tribunal to disqualify itself for bias is refused; 2. The period covered by both the race discrimination complaint and the victimisation complaint is 26 September 1998 to 26 March 1999; 3. The victimisation complaint comprises two allegations as follows:; The applicant alleges that he was subjected to an act of victimisation by the first respondent as the first respondent contravened s 50(1)(a) of the Act by reducing the amount of work which he had offered the applicant as a medical interpreter because he lodged a complaint under the Act against the first respondent. ; The applicant alleges that he has been subjected to an act of victimisation by the second respondent as members of the second respondent have caused medical schools in New South Wales not to admit the applicant as a student because he has made allegations of discrimination on the ground of race. This is an allegation that the second respondent has contravened s 50(1)(c) of the Act.