Fox v Office of the Board of Studies [2012] NSWADT 236

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Fox v Office of the Board of Studies [2012] NSWADT 236 Hearing dates: 15 August 2012 Decision date: 15 November 2012 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of disability discrimination to proceed. Catchwords: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY - Board of Studies initially refused to allow a student with a disability to use a computer in the HSC - whether leave should be given for a complaint of disability discrimination to proceed - Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 AB v Registrar of Births, Deaths & Marriages (2006) 235 ALR 147 King v Gosewisch [2008] FMCA 1221 AB v Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages (2007) 162 FCR 528 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Bowen Fox (Applicant) Office of the Board of Studies (Respondent) Representation: Counsel C Ronalds SC (Respondent) Mr Fox (Mr Fox senior as agent for Applicant) Board of Studies (Respondent) File Number(s): 121097

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1Mr Fox was a candidate for the Higher School Certificate in 2011. He has motor dyspraxia, a disorder that affects his ability to write. The Board of Studies initially refused, but later granted, his application to use a computer during the HSC exams. Mr Fox's father complained that the Board of Studies had discriminated against his son on the ground of his disability by initially refusing his application. He also complained that the marking practices for the HSC are discriminatory because markers assume that students who use a computer have an advantage and subconsciously give them lower marks. 2The provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act) do not apply to either of the situations Mr Fox is concerned about. In those circumstances, lawyers use the expression that the complaint is "misconceived" or "lacking in substance. Permission for it to go ahead is refused.