Mewett v The University of Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 325

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Mewett v The University of Sydney [2017] NSWCATAD 325 Hearing dates: 13 June 2017 and final submissions – 8 September 2017 Date of orders: 09 November 2017 Decision date: 09 November 2017 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: Hennessy LCM, Deputy President Decision: 1. Leave is granted for Mr Hargreave to represent Mr Mewett. 2. Leave is refused for Mr Mewett's complaints of age and disability discrimination to proceed. Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – where complaint of age and disability discrimination in education declined by President of Anti-Discrimination Board as lacking in substance – where the Tribunal needs to grant leave before complaint can proceed – whether fair and just for complaint to proceed – whether it is apparent that complaint lacks substance - Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Cases Cited: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Scott Mewett (Applicant) The University of Sydney (Respondent) Representation: S Hargreave (Agent for Applicant) Solicitors: Office of General Counsel, The University of Sydney (Respondent) File Number(s): 2017/00135618 Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview 1. Mr Mewett is in his late fifties and has an acquired brain injury, depression and anxiety. He was enrolled in a Bachelor of Architecture degree at the University of Sydney. He complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that the University had discriminated against him on the ground of age and disability by: 1. dismissing an allegation of bullying by a friend of another student in a tutorial; 2. refusing to provide him with affordable self-contained accommodation close to the University; and 3. failing to grant an extension of time to complete a written assignment during the summer break in 2016 – 2017. 1. The period of the compliant is 21 March 2016 to 5 September 2016. 2. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaints as lacking in substance. Mr Mewett has asked the Tribunal for permission for the complaints to go ahead. In my view it is not fair or just for the complaints to go ahead because, using legal terminology, they are misconceived and lacking in substance. Even if the Tribunal were to find that everything Mr Mewett says happened, did happen, the University's conduct would not be in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). I will explain why this is the case after setting out the legal principles for determining whether to give permission for a complaint to go ahead and the legislative framework.