Izzo v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training)

In the case of Izzo v State of Victoria (Department of Education and Training), the applicants brought claims under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). The central dispute was whether the Department of Education and Training failed to make reasonable adjustments for a student with disabilities. The court had to decide on a motion by the respondent to strike out certain parts of the applicants' statement of claim for being unclear or not disclosing a reasonable cause of action. The issues included whether certain allegations were sufficiently particularised, whether certain claims were time-barred, and whether the pleading allowed the respondent to know the case it had to meet.

The court found that some parts of the statement of claim were not clear enough and required further particulars. For example, the expressions "trigger situations" and "help to avoid trigger situations" needed more detail. Certain allegations were struck out because they were not relevant to the claim period or because they reframed the applicant's known disabilities with a diagnosis that occurred outside the relevant timeframe. The court concluded that the respondent was not required to defend against matters that did not exist at the time of the alleged discrimination. The court ordered the applicants to provide further particulars on certain terms and struck out several allegations that did not sufficiently state a cause of action.

The court also dismissed the respondent's interlocutory application otherwise, allowing the applicants to file a third further amended statement of claim within 30 days. The costs of the interlocutory application were to be determined on the papers, with each party submitting written costs submissions within 14 days.