Braiding v Charles Sturt University

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90
Hearing dates:	15 March 2016
Date of orders:	12 May 2016
Decision date:	12 May 2016
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President
Decision:	The complaints are dismissed.
Catchwords:	SUMMARY DISMISSAL – whether complaint of disability discrimination should be dismissed for want of prosecution, lacking in substance or failing to disclose a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 49B, 49L, 50, 52, 55, 92, 93C, 94A, 102 and 103 Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW), ss 36, 38 and 55(1)(d) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56. Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 12.7
Cases Cited:	AB v State New South Wales [2014] NSWSC 81 Barwick CJ in General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) [1964] HCA 69; (1964) 112 CLR 125 Birkett v James [1978] AC 297 Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2015] NSWCATAD 242 Dank v Cronulla Sutherland District Rugby League Football Club Ltd [2014] NSWCA 288 Green v Healthscope Ltd (t/as Hills Private Hospital) [2015] NSWCA 325 Hoser v Hartcher [1999] NSWSC 527 Owners Corporation of Strata Plan 4521 v Zouk [2007] NSWCA 23 Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2002] NSWADT 4 State of New South Wales v Plaintiff A [2012] NSWCA 248 Walker v State of New South Wales [2003] NSWADT 13 Witten v Lombard Australia Ltd (1968) 88 WN (Pt 1) (NSW) 405
Texts Cited:	Bernard Carins, Australian Civil Procedure (10th edition, Thomson Reuters) at 504
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Gerard Braiding (Applicant) Charles Sturt University (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) L Murrell (Charles Sturt University) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	1510081
Publication restriction:	nil

reasons for decision

The question

1. The question in these proceedings is whether Mr Braiding’s complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation should be dismissed as lacking in substance, not disclosing a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act1977 (NSW) or for want of prosecution.

How the question arises

2. In 2012 Mr Braiding enrolled as a student at the Charles Sturt University in a Bachelor of Social Work degree. At the conclusion of the 2013 academic year he transferred to a Bachelor of Psychology degree. He says he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and that when doing assessments he finds it difficult to cope and can become quite anxious. He withdrew from the Bachelor of Psychology course on 12 May 2014 because of the way the University responded to a complaint he made about how his assignment had been marked.

3. Mr Braiding was passing the course but disagreed with the marks given by his lecturers Mr Gardini and Ms Castillo based on their understanding of correct referencing. He also disagreed with the University Ombudsman’s interpretation of the Publication Manual of the American Psychologists Association (APA) and the way the Ombudsman had treated him in a meeting on 12…