Storey v Blacktown City Council

[2021] NSWCATAD 70

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Storey v Blacktown City Council [2021] NSWCATAD 70

Hearing dates:

10 February 2021

Date of orders:

19 March 2021

Decision date:

19 March 2021

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

C Ludlow, Senior Member

Decision:

Leave to proceed with the complaint is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS — equal opportunity — whether leave required for complaint to proceed — principles applying to grant of leave

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — discrimination in goods and services – refusal of service - terms of the service

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Local Government Act 1993 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

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

IW v The City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1

Munt v Workers Compensation Independent Review Officer [2020] NSWCATAD 156

Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2013] FCA 770

Rodwell v Terrey Hills Golf & Country Club Holdings Ltd trading as Terrey Hills Golf & Country Club [2014] NSWCATAD 34

Spence v Roberts (No 2) [2006] NSWADT 361

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Derek Storey (First Applicant)
Dongyu Storey (Second Applicant)
Blacktown City Council (Respondent)

Representation:

Solicitors:
First Applicant (Self Represented)
Second Applicant (Self Represented)
Sparke Helmore Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2020/00351585

Publication restriction:

None

REASONS FOR DECISION

Background

1. On 18 February 2020 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board received complaints of discrimination from Mr Derek Storey and Mrs Dongyu Storey against Blacktown City Council. Mr Storey lodged the complaints on his and Mrs Storey’s behalf. Both were complaints of disability discrimination in the area of goods and services under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA).

2. The President accepted for investigation the conduct from 1 November 2019 to 18 February 2020.On 16 September 2020 the President’s delegate declined the complaints under s 92(1)(a)(i) as lacking in substance. Mr Storey requested that the complaints be referred to this Tribunal under s93A of the ADA

Legislative context

3. Section 92 of the ADA provides:

“92 President may decline complaint during investigation

1. If at any stage of the President’s investigation of a complaint—

   (a)   the President is satisfied that—

   (i)   the complaint, or part of the complaint, is frivolous, vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance, or

   (ii)   the conduct alleged, or part of the conduct alleged, if proven, would not disclose the contravention of a provision of this Act or the regulations, or

   (iii)   the nature of the conduct alleged is such that further action by the President in relation to the complaint, or any part of the complaint, is not warranted, or

   (iv)   another more appropriate remedy has been, is being, or should be, pursued in relation to the complaint or part of the complaint, or

   (v)   the subject-matter of the complaint has been, is being, or should be, dealt with by another person or body, or

   (vi)   the respondent has taken appropriate steps to remedy or redress…