Ritchie v CMC Markets Stockbroking Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 195

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Ritchie v CMC Markets Stockbroking Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 195 Hearing dates: 21 October 2014 Decision date: 12 November 2014 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Hennessy LCM Deputy President Decision: Leave for the Applicant's complaint to proceed is refused Catchwords: NSW CIVIL AND ADMINSTRATIVE TRIBUNAL - disability discrimination complaint against stockbroker - whether fair and just to give leave for complaint to proceed Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Alan Ritchie (Applicant) CMC Markets Stockbroking Ltd (Respondent) Representation: A Ritchie (Applicant in person) P Casey (agent for Respondent) File Number(s): 1410456

reasons for decision

Introduction 1Mr Ritchie complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that CMC Markets Stockbroking Ltd had discriminated against him on the ground of his disability in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). Mr Ritchie alleges that CMC Markets did not provide him with recordings of phone calls that he said took place between him and officers of CMC Markets in 2009. He also complained about the time that it had taken CMC Markets to provide him with certain documents and recordings. 2The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined Mr Ritchie's complaint as lacking in substance. When that happens, s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act requires an applicant to obtain the Tribunal's permission (or leave) before the complaint can proceed. The Tribunal has an open discretion to grant or not to grant leave for a complaint to proceed but in determining that question the Tribunal should be guided by what is fair and just in the circumstances: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143. In addition, the criteria in section 92(1)(a) of Anti-Discrimination Act are relevant to the exercise of the discretion but not necessarily determinative of a leave application. The matters listed 92(1)(a) include grounds for declining a complaint because it is frivolous, vexatious, lacking in substance or does not disclose a contravention. 3The onus is on the applicant to persuade the Tribunal that leave should be granted.