Margan v Macquarie University

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Margan v Macquarie University [2025] NSWCATAD 198

Hearing dates:

27 May 2025

Date of orders:

8 August 2025

Decision date:

08 August 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President

Decision:

1. Leave is refused for the applicant’s complaints to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal.

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS — Legislation — Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) --- where applicant has required the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board to refer a declined complaints to the Tribunal – whether Tribunal should exercise discretion to grant leave for the complaint to be the subject of proceedings under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bogie v The University of Western Sydney (1990) EOC 92–313

Bonella v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194

Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143

Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388

Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513

Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Simon Margan (Applicant)
Macquarie University (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
Applicant (self-represented)
Bartier Perry Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2025/00156332

Publication restriction:

Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Mr Margan complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board that Macquarie University had discriminated against him on the ground of homosexuality by subjecting him to a detriment: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 49ZO. The discriminatory treatment was assigning him to a Catholic school for a three week placement (10 October to 28 October 2022) for the Master of Teaching course; retaining him in that placement or not reassigning him to another placement once concerns were raised; and initiating a ‘fitness to practice’ process after requesting removal from the placement.

2. Mr Margan contends that the University knows that he is a homosexual man and knew or should have known that it was dangerous for him to be given a placement in a religious school. According to Mr Margan it is a notorious fact that religious schools, especially Catholic schools, have a public and active opposition to LGBT+ rights.

3. Mr Margan’s second complaint is that the University victimised him in breach of s 50(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. He says that after he complained that staff at the Catholic school had discriminated against and harassed him, the University refused to allow him to withdraw from the course without penalty and failed to properly manage his complaint. He also says that the University informed the school of his complaint while he was still at the school rather than withdrawing him from the placement. Mr Margan alleges that this conduct exposed him to the additional detriment of being a complainant while being at the mercy of those being complained about.

4. The President accepted the complaints for investigation but declined them as “lacking in substance” under s 92(1)(a)(i). Mr Margan exercised his right to require the President to…