TU v AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Advanced Medical Institute [2010] NSWADT 290

CITATION: TU v AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Advanced Medical Institute [2010] NSWADT 290

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

APPLICANT TU PARTIES: RESPONDENT AMI Australia Holdings Pty Ltd trading as Advanced Medical Institute

FILE NUMBER: 091101

HEARING DATES: 6 and 7 April 2010, 7 May 2010 and 23 July 2010

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 23 July 2010

DATE OF DECISION: 7 December 2010

BEFORE: Grotte E - Judicial Member; O'Sullivan M - Non-Judicial Member; Hayes E - Non-Judicial Member

CATCHWORDS: Disability Discrimination - HIV - public health

LEGISLATION CITED : NSW Anti Discrimination Act 1977 Disability Discrimination Act (Cth) 1992

CASES CITED: Beattie (on behalf of Kiro and Lewis Beattie) –v- Maroochy Shire Council (1996) HREOCA 40 (20 December 1996) Hall –v- Sheiban (1985) ALR 503

APPLICANT Indraveer Chaterjee, solicitor REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT Natasha Petukh, In-House Counsel for the Respondent

ORDERS: 1. The Tribunal directs the Respondent to pay $30,000 to TU within 28 days of this decision 2. The Tribunal also directs the Respondent to refund in full the amount of $1995.00 to TU with credit to be given for any payment already made in this regard.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 At the commencement of the Tribunal Hearing on 6 April 2010 the Applicant applied for a suppression order pursuant to section 75 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (the ADT Act). Given the sensitive nature of the Applicant's disability, the Tribunal was satisfied that an order should be made pursuant to section 75(2) of the ADT Act that: 1)The disclosure of the name, address, picture or any other material that identifies or may lead to the identification of the Applicant is prohibited; 2)The doing of any other thing that identifies or may lead to the identification of the Applicant is prohibited; and 3)The publication of evidence given before the Tribunal or of matters contained in documents lodged with the Tribunal or received in evidence before the Tribunal is prohibited. This decision is subject to this Order and accordingly it has been written in a way that will not lead to the identification of the Applicant. The Applicant has generally been referred to as the Applicant, but in the title of, and elsewhere in, this decision, the Applicant is referred to as 'TU'.