Coady v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWCATAD 95

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Coady v Sutherland Shire Council [2016] NSWCATAD 95 Hearing dates: 12 April 2016 Date of orders: 16 May 2016 Decision date: 16 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: The application for an adjournment is refused. The application for a non-publication order is refused. Leave to proceed is refused. Catchwords: LEAVE – complaint declined - lacking in substance – whether fair and just for the complaints to proceed Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 24, 35, 49 and 96 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 51 and 64 Cases Cited: AEA Constructions Pty Ltd v New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal and Ors [2014] NSWSC 911 Dutt v Central Area Health Services [2002] NSWADT 133 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and another v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 128 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Richard Coady (Applicant) Sutherland Shire Council (Respondent) Representation: Applicant (self-represented) People and Culture Strategies (Respondent) File Number(s): 1510464 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview 1. The question in these proceedings is whether it is fair and just in all the circumstances for Mr Coady's complaints of sex, disability and age discrimination against the Sutherland Shire Council to go ahead. I have decided that it is not fair and just because Mr Coady is highly unlikely to be able to prove that Sutherland Shire Council has breached the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). I have also refused to grant Mr Coady an adjournment or make a non-disclosure order. The reasons for those rulings are set out at the end of this decision.