Kyriakou v Long

[2015] NSWCATAD 31

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Kyriakou v Long [2015] NSWCATAD 31
Hearing dates:	27 January 2015
Decision date:	03 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	N Hennessy LCM, Deputy President
Decision:	Leave for the complaint to proceed is refused.
Catchwords:	ANTI-DISCRIMINATION –application leave for declined complaint to proceed – serial unsuccessful complainant –whether fair and just in all the circumstances for leave to be granted-
Legislation Cited:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Dutt v Central Area Health Services [2002] NSWADT 133 Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143 Jiang v Kyriakou (Tenancy Division) [2013] NSWCTTT 120 Kyriakou v Jiang [2013] NSWCA 105 Kyriakou v Kuzevski (Tenancy) [2012] NSWCTTT 451 Kyriakou v Kuzevski & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1541 Kyriakou v Long [2013] NSWSC 1890 Kyriakou v Long [2014] NSWCA 308 Kyriakou v Xie. [2014] NSWCATCD 154 Kyriakou v State Transit Authority [2011] NSWTAB 17 Kyriakou v State Transit Authority Division of the NSW Government Service (No 2) [2012] NSWIRComm 63 Mitry v Abbas [2013] NSWADT 214
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Andrew Kyriakou (Applicant) Guo Fen Long (Respondent)
Representation:	Solicitor: A Kyriakou (Applicant in person) G Long (no appearance)
File Number(s):	1410646

REASONS FOR DECISION

Introduction

1. Mr Kyriakou had a residential tenancy agreement with Ms Long from July 2012 to July 2013. He moved out on 13 December 2013 following an order from the Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) terminating the tenancy. Mr Kyriakou, who is originally from Greece, complains that his landlord, Ms Long, who is of Chinese background, has discriminated against him on the ground of his race. The complaint is that contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), Ms Long denied him access, or limited his access, to certain benefits associated with the accommodation or caused him some other detriment.

2. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined Mr Kyriakou's complaint as lacking in substance: Anti-Discrimination Act, 92(1)(a)(i). Under s 96, Mr Kyriakou is required to obtain leave from the Tribunal before the complaint can proceed. I have decided to refuse leave because of Mr Kyriakou’s history of making complaints and the adverse findings that have been made about him together with the fact that the complaint lacks substance.

3. The complaint relates to disputes about:

1. whether Mr Kyriakou should park his car inside the property or on the street;

2. use of a barbecue; and

3. whether he could keep a pet on the premises.

4. Mr Kyriakou attended the leave hearing. Ms Long did not attend so I telephoned her at the beginning of the hearing. She said that she did not want to participate because she had already spent a considerable amount of money defending Mr Kyriakou’s appeals against decisions of the CTTT terminating the tenancy. I gave Ms Long the option of participating in the hearing by phone but she said she felt anxious when speaking with Mr Kyriakou. I considered Mr Kyriakou’s application for leave in the…