Rowley v Charles Sturt University - [2025] NSWSC 1092

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rowley v Charles Sturt University [2025] NSWSC 1092
Hearing dates: 23 September 2025
Date of orders: 23 September 2025
Decision date: 23 September 2025
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Walton J
Decision:
(1) The Notice of Motion filed by Rev Comrade Rowley on 15 June 2025 in the proceedings is dismissed.
(2) Costs shall be costs in the cause.

Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE – Judicial review proceedings – Where leave sought to permit cross-examination and oral evidence – Where evidence sought to be led is directed at merits of underlying decision – Where consideration of merits impermissible for purposes of Judicial review proceedings – Application dismissed

Legislation Cited:
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321; [1990] HCA 33
Choi v NSW Ombudsman [2022] NSWSC 1681
Minister for Immigration, Local Government & ethnic Affairs v Taveli (1990) 23 FCR 162
O’Reilly v Mackman (1983) 2 AC 237
Rowley v Charles Sturt University [2024] NSWCATAD 229

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Procedural rulings
Parties: Rev Comrade Rowley (Plaintiff)
Charles Sturt University (Defendant)
Representation:
Counsel:
Plaintiff (Self-Represented)
Solicitors:
Plaintiff (Self-Represented)
Minter Ellison (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2024/00334737
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

On 24 June 2023, Mr Rev Comrade Rowley (“Mr Rowley”) lodged a complaint with the President of Anti-Discrimination NSW (“ADNSW”) alleging disability discrimination in education, transgender discrimination in education, and victimisation pursuant to ss 49A, 49B, 49C, 49L, 38A, 38B, 38K, 50 and 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (“the Act”).
On 26 February 2024, the President of ADNSW declined the complaint under s 92(1)(a)(i) of the Act on the basis that she was satisfied that it was lacking in substance.
Mr Rowley requested that the President refer the complaint to the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) in accordance with s 93A of the Act. Pursuant to s 96(1) of the Act, such a complaint may not be subject of proceedings before the Tribunal without the Tribunal's leave. That provision is in the following terms:

96 Leave of Tribunal required for inquiry into certain matters
(1) A complaint that is referred to the Tribunal on the requirement of a complainant under section 93A (1) may not be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal without the leave of the Tribunal.

The Tribunal held a hearing in relation to the application for leave under s 96(1) of the Act on 1 May and 4 July 2024.
On 13 August 2024, the Tribunal determined to refuse leave for Mr Rowley’s complaint to proceed to a hearing pursuant to s 96(1) the Act: Rowley v Charles Sturt University [2024] NSWCATAD 229 at [104] (“the Decision”).
On 10 September 2024, Mr Rowley commenced proceedings in this Court by Summons (“the Summons commencing an appeal”). On the face of the Summons commencing an appeal, it appeared to be an appeal from the Decision. The Summons…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rowley v Charles Sturt University

Details

AGLC: Rowley v Charles Sturt University [2025] NSWSC 1092
Case: [2025] NSWSC 1092
Decision Date: 23 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Rowley v Charles Sturt University, the plaintiff sought leave to cross-examine the defendant and adduce oral evidence. The dispute arose out of an academic decision made by Charles Sturt University. The case was brought before the court for judicial review. The plaintiff sought to challenge the university’s decision, arguing that it was unfair and based on incorrect information.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff could be granted leave to cross-examine and present oral evidence. This was complicated by the fact that the evidence sought to be led by the plaintiff was directed at the merits of the underlying decision. In judicial review proceedings, the court is not permitted to consider the merits of the decision. This limitation arises from the nature of judicial review, which focuses on the legality and procedural fairness of the decision-making process, rather than the substantive merits of the decision itself.

The court found that the plaintiff's application for leave to cross-examine and present oral evidence was misconceived. The court held that the evidence sought by the plaintiff was directed at the merits of the decision, which was not permissible in judicial review proceedings. The court dismissed the application, noting that the plaintiff's evidence would not assist in determining whether the decision-making process was lawful and fair. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed and no orders were made.

Orders