Court v University of Wollongong [2015] NSWCATAD 249

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Court v University of Wollongong [2015] NSWCATAD 249 Hearing dates: 20 October 2015 Date of orders: 26 November 2015 Decision date: 26 November 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: Leave for the applicant's complaint of disability discrimination to proceed is refused. Catchwords: ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – leave to proceed when complaint declined as lacking in substance - complaint of disability discrimination against University – whether fair and just for complaint to proceed – complaint lacks merit – leave refused Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Cases Cited: Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5. Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Katherine Court University of Wollongong Representation: Ms Court (Applicant in person)

Solicitors: Bartier Perry (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510531

reasons for decision

Introduction 1. In January 2015 Ms Court was awarded a University of Wollongong Equity Scholarship to the value of $3000 per annum for a minimum of one year. She enrolled at the University on 19 February 2015. Two weeks later she complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that the University had refused to provide her with a person for 30 minutes a week to access a computer on her behalf. Later this request was amended to seeking assistance for two hours a week. Ms Court says that she has a very rare disability which means she cannot use a computer, mobile phone or any other "electrical gadget". A letter from clinical psychologist Anthony Weaver dated 20 April 2015, states that Ms Court was diagnosed with an "impaired working memory" by neuropsychologist Dr Chris Allen. That diagnosis was made some time in 2011. 2. From Ms Court's point of view, if the University provides her with a support person, her complaint will be resolved. The University says that they have not received enough information about her medical condition to determine what kinds of support Ms Court actually needs. Ms Court's response is that she has provided everything the University has requested and there are no extra documents she can provide. 3. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint on the basis that it was lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 92(1)(a). When that happens, the complainant must apply to the Tribunal for permission or 'leave' for the complaint to go ahead: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96. I have refused leave in this case because the complaint lacks substance and it is not fair and just for it to proceed.