Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT - [2025] NSWCATAD 183

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT [2025] NSWCATAD 183
Hearing dates: 9 July 2025
Date of orders: 25 July 2025
Decision date: 25 July 2025
Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President
Decision:
1. Leave is refused for the applicant’s complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal.
2. Within 7 days of the date of these reasons, either party may apply to substitute a legal entity for the respondent named in these proceedings if that entity is not a legal entity.

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)
National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
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

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Amanda Trott (Applicant)
Uniting NSW.ACT (Respondent)
Representation: Applicant (self-represented)
Solicitors:
Hosking & Gosling Legal (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2025/00176382
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS FOR DECISION

Overview

Ms Trott complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board about conduct of Uniting NSW.ACT. She claimed that Uniting had discriminated against her on the ground of her disability and victimised her in breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
The President accepted the complaints for investigation. Following investigation, the President declined the complaints as “lacking in substance” under s 92(1)(a)(i) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Ms Trott exercised her right to require the President to refer the complaints to the Tribunal: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 92 and s 93A. A complaint that is referred to the Tribunal on the requirement of a complainant “may not be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal without the leave of the Tribunal”: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96(1). The word “leave” means “permission”.
For the following reasons I refuse to give Ms Trott permission for her complaints of disability discrimination and victimisation to be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal.
I am unsure if Uniting NSW.ACT is a legal entity. Their legal representative did not object to the proceedings being brought against that entity. If Uniting is not a legal entity, either party may apply, within 7 days of the date these reasons are published, for the correct respondent to be substituted for Uniting NSW.ACT.

Legal principles for granting or refusing “leave” under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act

Section 96(1) provides that:

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…

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 Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT

Details

AGLC: Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT [2025] NSWCATAD 183
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 183
Decision Date: 25 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT involved an applicant seeking to have a complaint of discrimination referred to the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The applicant argued that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had improperly declined to refer the complaint to the Tribunal. The applicant sought leave under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal. The dispute was heard and determined by the Tribunal.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant leave for the complaint to proceed under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Tribunal had to consider the criteria set out in the Act and whether the applicant's case met the threshold for the Tribunal to accept the complaint. Specifically, the Tribunal needed to determine whether the applicant had a genuine complaint of discrimination and whether the matter warranted further investigation and potential proceedings.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the applicant's complaint did not meet the criteria for leave to be granted under section 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that the complaint was significant or that it warranted the Tribunal's intervention. The Tribunal also noted that the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board had properly exercised their discretion in declining to refer the complaint to the Tribunal. Therefore, the Tribunal refused leave for the applicant’s complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal.

In addition to refusing leave for the complaint to proceed, the Tribunal made an order that within seven days of the date of the reasons, either party may apply to substitute a legal entity for the respondent named in these proceedings if that entity is not a legal entity. This ensures that the respondent in the proceedings is properly identified and that the case can proceed in the correct legal form.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

2. Within 7 days of the date of these reasons, either party may apply to substitute a legal entity for the respondent named in these proceedings if that entity is not a legal entity.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Trott v Uniting NSW.ACT [2025] NSWCATAD 183
Hearing dates:	9 July 2025
Date of orders:	25 July 2025
Decision date:	25 July 2025
Jurisdiction:	Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before:	Hennessy ADCJ, Deputy President
Decision:	1. Leave is refused for the applicant’s complaint to be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal. 2. Within 7 days of the date of these reasons, either party may apply to substitute a legal entity for the respondent named in these proceedings if that entity is not a legal entity.
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) National Disability Insurance Scheme Act 2013 (Cth)
Cases Cited:	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
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Amanda Trott (Applicant) Uniting NSW.ACT (Respondent)
Representation:	Applicant (self-represented) Solicitors: Hosking & Gosling Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2025/00176382
Publication restriction:	Nil