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

Bryce Lewis, a 14-year-old with several disabilities, commenced a proceeding against the State of Victoria alleging disability discrimination in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Lewis claimed that the State's conduct contravened sections 22(2)(a) and 22(2)(c) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992, resulting in his limited or denied access to educational benefits and detriment. The State of Victoria denied any wrongdoing and argued that it had complied with the Disability Standards for Education 2005. The parties reached an in-principle agreement to settle the proceeding, which was formalised in a Deed of Settlement and Release. The terms of the settlement are confidential. Lewis's litigation representative applied for approval of the settlement under rule 9.70 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The application was supported by an affidavit from the applicant's solicitor and an independent legal opinion. The court considered whether the settlement was in the best interests of Lewis, and whether the legal opinion met the requirement of an independent lawyer. The court found that the settlement was in Lewis's best interests and that the legal opinion was provided by an independent lawyer. Consequently, the court approved the settlement and ordered the confidentiality of the documents be preserved.

The legal issues the court needed to decide included whether the settlement was in the best interests of the applicant and whether the legal opinion provided met the requirement of an independent lawyer. The court referred to previous decisions that the requirement for an independent legal opinion did not necessitate the opinion of a lawyer with no previous association with the proceeding, but rather that the lawyer providing the opinion did so in furtherance of the lawyer's duty to assist the court and not in furtherance of any duty to a party in the proceeding. The court found that the legal opinion provided met this requirement. The court also considered the confidentiality of the settlement documents and ordered that they be preserved in accordance with the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth).