Colgar v Hardwick [2013] NSWADT 254

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Colgar v Hardwick [2013] NSWADT 254 Hearing dates: 5 November 2013 Decision date: 12 November 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of presumed disability discrimination to proceed. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION - whether fair and just for declined complaint of disability discrimination against doctor to proceed - whether doctor providing services to mother of 10 year old patient - Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1991) 173 CLR 349 IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1 Turner v State Transit Authority [2004] NSWADT 89 Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nezahat Colgar (Applicant) Robert Hardwick (Respondent) Representation: N Colgar (Applicant in person) Norton Rose Fullbright Australia (Respondent) File Number(s): 131099

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction 1Ms Colgar complains that from November 2011 to October 2012 Dr Hardwick, a consultant paediatrician, discriminated against her on the ground of a presumed mental illness. Ms Colgar attended Dr Hardwick's practice with her son, who is now 10 years old, on nine occasions during 2011 and 2012. Ms Colgar says that doctors have been influenced by Dr Hardwick's opinion that she has a mental illness and that has prevented her from accessing objective medical care for her son. 2The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as lacking in substance. Ms Colgar requested that it be referred to the Tribunal. She needs the Tribunal's permission before her complaint can go ahead: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (AD Act), s 96. Ms Colgar has the onus of persuading the Tribunal that it is fair and just for her complaint to proceed, keeping in mind the purposes of the AD Act: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143, per Schmidt AJ.