Budd v State of New South Wales (Attorney General's Department) (EOD)

[2007] NSWADTAP 66

Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION:	Budd v State of New South Wales (Attorney General's Department) (EOD) [2007] NSWADTAP 66
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Pamela Joan Budd RESPONDENT State of New South Wales (Attorney General's Department)
FILE NUMBER:	079034
HEARING DATES:	On the papers
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	10 August 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	13 November 2007
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Higgins S - Judicial Member; Bolt M - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	dismissal of appeal - lacking in substance - no question of law identified
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	061066, 061078
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	05/25/2007
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Not Applicable
REPRESENTATION:	In person I Knight, Crown Solicitor
ORDERS:	The Tribunal’s orders are affirmed.

REASONS FOR DECISION

1 Ms Budd has appealed against a decision of the Tribunal summarily dismissing two complaints of disability discrimination as lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, s 102. The Tribunal found that Ms Budd suffers from social phobia and agoraphobia which means that she is rarely able to leave home. Her complaints related to requests that she made to various Local Courts for an apprehended violence order (AVO) to be issued. The Tribunal dismissed the complaints because Magistrates, when exercising discretion to refuse to issue process for an AVO or when determining AVO applications, are not providing a “service” within the meaning of that word in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. In addition the Tribunal found that Magistrates are protected by judicial immunity from civil actions when undertaking those roles. The Tribunal concluded that even taking Ms Budd’s complaints at their highest, they lacked substance and should be dismissed.

2 Ms Budd is entitled to appeal from this decision on a question of law. She also sought leave for the appeal to extend to a review of the merits of the Tribunal’s decision: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act), s 113(2). The Notice of Appeal states that the Tribunal applied the wrong reasoning and used the wrong legislation because judicial immunity is not the relevant issue. Ms Budd added that her illness prevents her from complying with all the rules of the Local Court in relation to AVOs.

3 We agree with the submissions from the Attorney General’s Department that it is not clear what the errors of law are that Ms Budd is seeking to test or how it is that they are errors of law. Nor is it clear on what basis Ms Budd is requesting leave to appeal against the merits of the Tribunal’s decision. We can detect no error in the Tribunal’s reasons for decision, nor are we persuaded that we should grant leave for the appeal to extend to the merits of that decision. Unless the treatment about which Ms Budd is complaining comes within the definition of a “service” in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, or within some other area of public life covered by that Act, the complaint has no substance. Ms Budd has not put forward any submission as to why the Tribunal was incorrect when it decided that Magistrates, when exercising discretion to refuse to issue process for an AVO or when determining AVO applications, are not providing her with a “service”. Even if a service was being provided, Ms Budd has not explained why the Tribunal was wrong to conclude that Magistrates are protected by judicial immunity. Consequently, the Tribunal’s order summarily dismissing the complaints is affirmed.