Trau v President of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW

In the case of Trau v President of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW, the applicant, Trau, sought a writ of mandamus against the President of the Anti Discrimination Board of NSW, challenging the Board's decision to not exercise its power to refer the applicant's complaint of racial discrimination to the police. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant argued that the Board's refusal to refer his complaint to the police was unreasonable and an abuse of the Board's discretion.

The court was required to determine whether the Board's decision not to refer the complaint to the police was unlawful and whether the court should grant the applicant a writ of mandamus compelling the Board to refer the complaint to the police. The applicant contended that the Board had an obligation to refer his complaint to the police and that the Board's refusal to do so was an abuse of its discretion. The Board, on the other hand, argued that it had the discretion to decide whether or not to refer a complaint to the police and that the Board's decision was reasonable.

The court held that the Board had the discretion to decide whether or not to refer a complaint to the police and that the Board's decision was not an abuse of that discretion. The court found that the Board had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion reasonably. The court further held that the applicant's complaint did not meet the threshold for referral to the police and that the Board's decision not to refer the complaint was not unlawful. The court refused the applicant's application for a writ of mandamus.

The court held that the Board's decision not to refer the applicant's complaint to the police was not an abuse of its discretion and was not unlawful. The court found that the Board had considered all relevant factors and had exercised its discretion reasonably. The court further held that the applicant's complaint did not meet the threshold for referral to the police and that the Board's decision not to refer the complaint was not unlawful. The court refused the applicant's application for a writ of mandamus. The court held that the Board had not acted unlawfully and that the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought.