King v University of Notre Dame Australia

In the case of King v University of Notre Dame Australia, the applicant, King, filed a complaint against the University, alleging indirect discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The applicant argued that the University's requirement for prospective students to attend a day-long interview, which included a session on Catholic values, indirectly discriminated against those of non-Catholic faiths. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Court of New South Wales, where the primary issue was whether the University's conduct constituted indirect discrimination, and if so, whether leave was required for the complaint to proceed.

The court was tasked with determining the meaning of a "requirement or condition" in the context of indirect discrimination, and whether the interview requirement imposed by the University qualified as such. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles governing the grant of leave under the Anti-Discrimination Act, specifically section 96(1). The applicant argued that the interview requirement was a condition that disproportionately affected non-Catholics, thus constituting indirect discrimination. The University contended that the requirement was not discriminatory but rather an essential part of its admission process, aimed at assessing the applicant's compatibility with its Catholic ethos.

The court held that the interview requirement did not constitute a "requirement or condition" within the meaning of the Act. It found that the requirement was not a formal, mandatory condition but rather a part of the assessment process. Furthermore, the court determined that the requirement was not discriminatory as it was applied equally to all applicants, regardless of their religious beliefs. The court also concluded that the principles for granting leave under section 96(1) of the Act were not satisfied in this case, as the applicant had not demonstrated a reasonable prospect of success on the merits. Therefore, the application for leave to proceed with the complaint was refused.

The court's final order was that leave to proceed with the complaint was refused under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The court's decision was based on its interpretation of the meaning of a "requirement or condition" and the application of the principles for granting leave, ultimately finding that the applicant had not met the necessary threshold to proceed with the complaint.