CAS v TAL Life Limited [2015] NSWCATAD 51

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: CAS v TAL Life Limited [2015] NSWCATAD 51 Decision date: 23 March 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Hennessy, LCM Deputy President Decision: CAS's application for the three summonses to be set aside is refused. Catchwords: PRACTICE and PROCEDURE – application for summonses to be set aside – apparent relevance to issues in the proceedings Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: Becwell Legal Services Pty Ltd v McMaster [2011] FCA 1501 Portal Software v Bodsworth [2005] NSWSC 1115 Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62 (2003) 217 CLR 92 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: CAS (Applicant) TAL Life Limited (Respondent) Representation: Solicitors: HIV/AIDs Legal Centre Inc (NSW) (Applicant) Turks Legal (Respondent) File Number(s): 1410042 Publication restriction: The publication of the name of the applicant including the publication of any information picture or other material that identifies him or is likely to lead to his identification is prohibited.

decision

Introduction 1. The applicant, CAS, has applied to set aside three summonses that TAL Life Ltd served on a treating doctor, a medical centre and CAS's employer. As there is a suppression order in relation to the applicant's name, I have not identified the people or organisations to whom the summonses are addressed because identifying them may reveal CAS's identity. The summonses request documents that relate to CAS's health status and employment history. 2. The Registrar has power to issue a summons and the Tribunal has power to set it aside: Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), s 48 and s 29(2)(a). CAS has standing to apply for the summonses to be set aside even though the people named in the summonses have produced the documents without objection. 3. The summonses relate to proceedings that CAS has brought under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). CAS alleges that TAL discriminated against him on the ground that he is HIV positive by refusing to provide him with a service or providing him with a service on certain terms: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 49M. The service has been identified as the provision of income protection insurance. A person with such insurance is entitled to receive monthly payments if he or she becomes temporarily unable to work because of illness or injury. It is not in dispute that TAL's policy is to refuse to provide that kind of income protection insurance to people who are HIV positive. 4. If the complaint is substantiated, CAS does not seek an order requiring TAL to provide him with the insurance cover. While the remedy that CAS is seeking is not entirely clear, the Amended Points of Claim state that, as a direct result of the TAL's policies, CAS has suffered significant humiliation, anxiety and stress. No specific amount of damages is claimed.