James v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 146

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: James v Department of Family and Community Services [2017] NSWCATAD 146 Hearing dates: 21 March 2017 Date of orders: 09 May 2017 Decision date: 09 May 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Scahill, Senior Member Decision: Leave granted Catchwords: Disability discrimination in provision of goods and services- Age discrimination in provision of goods and services Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Disability Inclusion Act 2014 Cases Cited: BRQ v State of NSW (Department of Family and Community Services) [2015] NSWCATAD 29 Coomaraswamy v University of New South Wales [2016] NSWCATAD 41 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 Purvis v New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92. Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Colin James (Complainant) NSW Department of Family and Community Services (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Ms Goodchild (Complainant)

Solicitors CAREfusion Advocacy & Legal (Complainant) Family and Community Services Legal (Respondent File Number(s): 2017/0037634

Reasons for decision

The Application 1. Mr James ("the Applicant") brought proceedings for leave pursuant to section 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ("the Act") arising out of the Acting President declining his complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board ("ADB"). 2. The Applicant's complaints were of disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services under sections 49A, 49B, 49C and 49M; and age discrimination in the provision of goods and services under sections 49ZYA and 49ZYN of the Act. 3. The Acting President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 92(1) (a). The issue in this case is whether it is fair and just for the Tribunal to give Mr James permission (or "leave") for his complaint to go ahead: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96. Mr James bears the onus of persuading the Tribunal that leave should be granted. 4. The Tribunal conducted a hearing of the application for leave on 21 March 2017. Mr James was represented by Ms Dona Graham, solicitor, of CAREfusion Advocacy & Legal and Ms Louise Goodchild of counsel. The Respondent was represented by Mr Viet Hoang Nguyen of FACS Legal. 5. The Tribunal is satisfied that it is fair and just for Mr James to be given leave to proceed with his complaints. The Tribunal has determined to grant leave for the disability and age discrimination in provision of goods and services complaints to proceed against the Respondent for the following reasons.