Legal Research
Cases
Barr v Macquarie University

Barr v Macquarie University

Case [2025] NSWCATAD 267 29 October 2025

Discrimination

Equal Opportunity

Disability Discrimination

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Barr v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 267
Hearing dates: 27 August 2025
Date of orders: 29 October 2025
Decision date: 29 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: D Ziegler, Senior Member
Decision:
(1) Leave is granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the applicant’s complaint of direct disability discrimination against the respondent, in relation to the decision to refuse the applicant’s application for re-enrolment in its PhD program, to proceed.
(2) Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the balance of the applicant’s complaints to proceed.
(3) The applicant’s “Application for Miscellaneous Matters” filed on 13 June 2025 is dismissed.

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS — discrimination — equal opportunity — disability discrimination — leave required for complaint to proceed — whether complaint lacking in substance — principles applying to grant of leave.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — whether a non-publication order should be made.

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
ACE v State of NSW (TAFE Commission and DET (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 77
Aljami v Macquarie University [2019] NSWSC 1026
Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 167
Carroll v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 82.
Carroll v Tokdogan [2015] NSWCATAD 200
CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2017] NSWCATAD 220
Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
CME v The University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 113
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143
Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 12
GVQ v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 160
Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221
Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104
Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69
Wecker v The Delegate (the decision maker) to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board [2014] NSWCA 372
Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1
Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 128
Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service [2006] NSWADT 3

Texts Cited:
None

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Philippa Barr (Applicant)
Macquarie University (Respondent)
Representation: Self Represented (Applicant)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00222180
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

Ms Barr (the applicant) is currently an undergraduate student and former staff…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Barr v Macquarie University

Details

AGLC: Barr v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 267
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 267
Decision Date: 29 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Barr v Macquarie University, the dispute revolves around the respondent's decision to refuse the applicant's application for re-enrolment in its PhD program, which the applicant alleges constitutes direct disability discrimination. The matter was heard in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of New South Wales.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant's complaint had substance sufficient to warrant leave to proceed under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and whether a non-publication order should be granted. The applicant argued that the refusal to re-enrol her was due to her disability, while the respondent maintained that the decision was based on academic and administrative grounds unrelated to her disability.

The court granted leave for the applicant's complaint of direct disability discrimination to proceed, as the complaint demonstrated a prima facie case based on the evidence presented. However, leave was refused for the balance of the applicant's complaints, as they lacked sufficient substance. The court also dismissed the applicant's "Application for Miscellaneous Matters" filed on 13 June 2025, finding that it did not meet the required criteria for consideration.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Leave is granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the applicant’s complaint of direct disability discrimination against the respondent, in relation to the decision to refuse the applicant’s application for re-enrolment in its PhD program, to proceed.

(2) Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the balance of the applicant’s complaints to proceed.

(3) The applicant’s “Application for Miscellaneous Matters” filed on 13 June 2025 is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citations

AGLC Citation

Barr v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 267

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 23 of 23 shown

GVQ v Children's Guardian
[2025] NSWCATAD 160 Para 3

…The facts in GVQ v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 160 are distinguishable from the present case. There a non-publication order was initially put in place because the Tribunal was concerned that the identity of a victim or witness (including a child with disability in a school setting) could be disclosed. The Trib…
Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2)
[2022] NSWCATAD 27 Para 4

…Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27 concerned an application under s 64(1)(d) of the NCAT Act which deals with non-disclosure of evidence and documents to some or all of the parties to the proceedings. There is no such application before me. Thus, beyond the general statement…
Alajmi v Macquarie University
[2019] NSWSC 1026 Para 57

…on was the subject of an independent appeal and findings which affirmed the University’s decision. It submits, citing Aljami v Macquarie University [2019] NSWSC 1026, that the decision was a matter of academic judgment which is not amenable to review by the Tribunal.…
DKV v Southern NSW Local Health District
[2019] NSWCATAD 12 Para 104

…v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 ( Dezfouli ) at [58]; Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221 at [9]-[10]; Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 12 at [10]-[12] and [23].…
CME v The University of Technology Sydney
[2018] NSWCATAD 113 Para 2

…CME v The University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 113 is not instructive because the decision does not disclose the nature of the applicant’s personal details which were relevant to the making of the non-publication order.…
CBL v Sydney Water Corporation
[2017] NSWCATAD 220 Para 1

…The facts in CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2017] NSWCATAD 220 are distinguishable from the present case because there the non-publication order was not opposed by the respondent and was made in circumstances where there was a statutory obligation as to confidentiality as set out in s 22 of the Public Interest Disclo…
Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd
[2016] NSWCATAD 282 Para 9

…llegations or that the complaint is “not reasonably arguable”: Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 at 107 and Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282 at [22].…
Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd
[2016] NSWCATAD 167 Para 50

…WADT 133 ( Dutt ) at [59]‑[65]; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 5 at [60]-[61]; Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 167 at [23].…
Carroll v Tokdogan
[2015] NSWCATAD 200 Para 107

…The principle of open justice means that “the power contained in s 64 should be exercised sparingly”: Carroll v Tokdogan [2015] NSWCATAD 200 at [8].…
Carroll v Department of Family and Community Services
[2015] NSWCATAD 82 Para 3

…ne of the things listed in s50(a) – (d) of the Act, which I will refer to as “causation”: Carroll v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 82 at [24].…
Wecker v The Delegate (the decision maker) to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board
[2014] NSWCA 372 Para 13

…nt under s 89B(2)(b): s 89B(4) of the Act. See also, Wecker v The Delegate (the decision maker) to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board [2014] NSWCA 372.…
Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4)
[2012] NSWADT 128 Para 68

…the case. The relevant factors when considering reasonableness were summarised by the Tribunal in Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 128 at [269]:…
Ace v State of NSW (TAFE Commission and Det (No 2)
[2011] NSWADT 77 Para 116

…se be situations in which a suppression order will be desirable for other reasons. For example, in ACE v State of NSW (TAFE Commission and DET (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 77 - which the applicant relies upon in her submissions - the Tribunal was satisfied that a suppression order was desirable because the application was…
Jones & Anor v Ekermawi
[2009] NSWCA 388 Para 15

…Section 96(1) gives the Tribunal an unfettered discretion to grant leave for a complaint to proceed: Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 at [58] (Jones); Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 at [25] (“Ekermawi”). That discretion must be exercised having regard to the purpos…
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales
[2009] NSWSC 143 Para 15

…leave for a complaint to proceed: Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 at [58] (Jones); Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 at [25] (“Ekermawi”). That discretion must be exercised having regard to the purpose of the legislative scheme established by the Act and be guided b…
State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli
[2008] NSWADTAP 69 Para 104

…s the Tribunal orders otherwise: NCAT Act, s 49(1). This reflects the principle of open justice: State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 ( Dezfouli ) at [58]; Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221 at [9]-[10]; Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 12 at [10]-[1…
Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service
[2006] NSWADT 3 Para 63

…n cross examination may lead to the proof of factual matters about which the applicant has no direct evidence: Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service [2006] NSWADT 3 at [16] citing Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1.…
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service
[2002] NSWADT 133 Para 50

…actual comparator with whom to compare the applicant, then a hypothetical comparator may be considered: Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 ( Dutt ) at [59]‑[65]; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 5 at [60]-[61]; Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 16…
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge
[2000] NSWADTAP 5 Para 50

…sidered: Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 ( Dutt ) at [59]‑[65]; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 5 at [60]-[61]; Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 167 at [23].…
Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness
[2000] NSWCA 29 Para 52

…ion is probable. An inference cannot be made where more probable and innocent explanations are available on the evidence: Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262; Dutt at [70].…
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd
[1999] NSWADT 73 Para 18

…e is accepted as true and then the Tribunal determines whether she could possibly succeed in her complaint: Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73 at [35].…
Wickstead v Browne [No 2]
[1993] NSWCA 289 Para 63

…al matters about which the applicant has no direct evidence: Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service [2006] NSWADT 3 at [16] citing Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1.…
[2018] NSWCATAP 221
[2018] NSWCATAP 221 Para 104

…open justice: State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 ( Dezfouli ) at [58]; Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221 at [9]-[10]; Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 12 at [10]-[12] and [23].…

Legislation cited in this decision · 6

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 100)
Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Public Interest Disclosures Act 1994 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 4)
Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 42)

Medium Neutral Citation:	Barr v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 267
Hearing dates:	27 August 2025
Date of orders:	29 October 2025
Decision date:	29 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	D Ziegler, Senior Member
Decision:	(1) Leave is granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the applicant’s complaint of direct disability discrimination against the respondent, in relation to the decision to refuse the applicant’s application for re-enrolment in its PhD program, to proceed. (2) Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the balance of the applicant’s complaints to proceed. (3) The applicant’s “Application for Miscellaneous Matters” filed on 13 June 2025 is dismissed.
Catchwords:	HUMAN RIGHTS — discrimination — equal opportunity — disability discrimination — leave required for complaint to proceed — whether complaint lacking in substance — principles applying to grant of leave. PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — whether a non-publication order should be made.
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	ACE v State of NSW (TAFE Commission and DET (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 77 Aljami v Macquarie University [2019] NSWSC 1026 Bassili v The Star Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 167 Carroll v Department of Family and Community Services [2015] NSWCATAD 82. Carroll v Tokdogan [2015] NSWCATAD 200 CBL v Sydney Water Corporation [2017] NSWCATAD 220 Chalker v Murrays Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCATAD 282 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) CME v The University of Technology Sydney [2018] NSWCATAD 113 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143 Frost v TAFE NSW (No 2) [2019] NSWCATAD 12 GVQ v Children’s Guardian [2025] NSWCATAD 160 Jones v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388 Kostov v Ecclesia Housing Limited (No 3) [2018] NSWCATAP 221 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 Pendrick v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (No 2) [2022] NSWCATAD 27 Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Ltd [1999] NSWADT 73 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; (2000) 49 NSWLR 262 State of New South Wales (Justice Health) v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 Wecker v The Delegate (the decision maker) to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board [2014] NSWCA 372 Wickstead v Browne (1992) 30 NSWLR 1 Wong v Office of the Board of Studies NSW (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 128 Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service [2006] NSWADT 3
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Philippa Barr (Applicant) Macquarie University (Respondent)
Representation:	Self Represented (Applicant) Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00222180
Publication restriction:	Nil