Wong v Board of Studies New South Wales [2010] NSWADT 274

CITATION: Wong v Board of Studies New South Wales [2010] NSWADT 274

DIVISION: General Division

APPLICANT Sarah Wong PARTIES: RESPONDENT Board of Studies NSW

FILE NUMBER: 101107

HEARING DATES: 9 November 2010

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 9 November 2010

DATE OF DECISION: 16 November 2010

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President)

CATCHWORDS: LEAVE – merits of complaint

LEGISLATION CITED : Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 CASES CITED: New South Wales v Amery (2006) 80 ALJR 753 Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388

APPLICANT E Wong, agent REPRESENTATION: RESPONDENT C Ronalds, senior counsel

ORDERS: 1. Leave is granted for the applicant's complaint of disability discrimination to proceed 2. The matter is listed for case conference on 8 December 2010 at 3pm.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1 The issue in this case is whether the Tribunal should give Ms Wong permission for her complaint of disability discrimination against the Board of Studies NSW (the Board) to go ahead even though the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) declined the complaint as lacking in substance. Ms Eileen Wong, Ms Sarah Wong's mother, appeared as agent for her daughter. I allowed her to do so despite the fact that she had not lodged an application to act as agent.

2 Ms Wong sat for the Higher School Certificate examinations in 2008. She applied for and was granted 'special provisions' when she sat for the English Advanced and Modern History papers. She was provided with a writer, extra time to complete the exams and rest breaks. The reason for these special provisions was that Ms Wong experiences pain and cramps in her hands when writing for long periods. Ms Wong's complaint involved two of the Board's decisions. The first was their decision to refuse to allow her to use a computer. The second decision was to refuse to adjust Ms Wong's marks. The second decision was made after Ms Wong lodged a 'misadventure' appeal with the Board following the exams. Successful appeals can lead to the school assessment mark being used instead of the examination mark. The Board said that it was not appropriate to adjust Ms Wong's marks because, firstly, Ms Wong's school assessments were lower than her examination marks and secondly, because the procedures used by the school to calculate those marks were fair. Ms Eileen Wong submitted that those procedures were not fair and that her daughter's marks should have been adjusted.