Rodwell v Terrey Hills Golf and Country Club Holdings Ltd trading as Terrey Hills Golf and Country Club

The case of Rodwell v Terrey Hills Golf and Country Club Holdings Ltd involved a complaint of sex discrimination. The Applicant alleged that she had been discriminated against on the grounds of sex, including being denied membership to the Terrey Hills Golf and Country Club. The President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had declined to accept the complaint for investigation. The Applicant sought leave for the complaint to proceed, which was heard in the New South Wales Supreme Court. The primary legal issue was whether it was fair and just for the complaint to proceed. The court had to consider whether the Applicant had a reasonable prospect of success on the merits of the complaint and whether the matter raised an arguable question of law of general public importance.

The court found that the complaint did not have a reasonable prospect of success on the merits. The Applicant had not established a prima facie case of sex discrimination, and the evidence did not support her allegations. The court also found that the matter did not raise an arguable question of law of general public importance. The court was satisfied that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and had not acted unreasonably. The court held that it was not fair and just for the complaint to proceed, and therefore, the Applicant's application for leave was refused.

The court emphasised the importance of the Anti-Discrimination Board's discretion in deciding whether to accept a complaint for investigation. The court noted that the Board had considered the Applicant's complaint and had decided not to accept it for investigation. The court found that the Board's decision was not unreasonable and that the Applicant had not established that the Board had acted outside the scope of its statutory powers. The court also noted that the Applicant had not provided any evidence to support her allegations of sex discrimination, and that the evidence before the court did not establish a prima facie case of discrimination.

The final order of the court was that leave for the Applicant's complaint of sex discrimination to proceed was refused. The court held that the complaint did not have a reasonable prospect of success on the merits and did not raise an arguable question of law of general public importance. The court also found that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had exercised their discretion in accordance with the law and had not acted unreasonably. The Applicant's application for leave was therefore refused.