Colgar v Curtin [2013] NSWADT 255

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Colgar v Curtin [2013] NSWADT 255 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 Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Nezahat Colgar (Applicant) Julie Curtin (Respondent) Representation: N Colgar (Applicant in person) Curwoods Lawyers (Respondent) File Number(s): 131098

reasons for decision

Introduction 1Ms Colgar complains that Dr Curtin, Clinical Senior Staff Specialist in the Haematology Department of Westmead Children's Hospital, has discriminated against her on the ground of a presumed mental illness in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Ms Colgar says that when she was at the Hospital seeking treatment for her 10 year old son, Dr Curtin ignored her son's symptoms, did not do her job properly, sent her to a mental hospital to cover up her colleagues' mess and continually called her a mentally ill person. Mrs Colgar's main concern is that the Hospitals' records state that she is mentally ill and that means her son cannot get the treatment which he desperately needs. 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: 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.