Dezfouli v Pulley [2013] NSWADT 223

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Dezfouli v Pulley [2013] NSWADT 223 Hearing dates: 13 August 2013 Decision date: 11 October 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of race discrimination to proceed. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - leave - complaint of race discrimination by forensic patient against treating psychiatrist -complaint declined as lacking in substance -- whether fair and just to grant leave for complaint to proceed - whether treating doctor providing a service to applicant when giving expert evidence to the Mental Health Review Tribunal 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 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Saeed Dezfouli (Applicant) Rafe Pulley (Respondent) Representation: Counsel E Raper (Respondent) Ms M Turner (Guardian ad litem for Applicant) Crown Solicitor's Office (Respondent) File Number(s): 131047

reasons for decision

Introduction 1Mr Dezfouli is an Iranian man who is a patient at the Forensic Hospital. He complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that his treating psychiatrist, Dr Pulley, discriminated against him on the ground of his race when providing an expert report about him to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT). The President declined the complaint as "lacking in substance" and Mr Dezfouli has elected to have his complaint referred to the Tribunal. Before his complaint can go ahead the Tribunal must give its permission or 'leave'. The test is whether it is fair and just in all the circumstances to do so: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act), s 96; Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 I have decided to refuse leave for Mr Dezfouli's complaint to go ahead because it is highly unlikely that he would be able to prove that Dr Pulley has breached the AD Act. 2The Tribunal appointed Ms Turner as Mr Dezfouli's guardian ad litem: AD Act, s 71(4). Dr Pulley was represented by counsel.