Wecker v Delegate to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board

Paul J Wecker brought an application for judicial review of two decisions of the delegate to the President of the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Board. The decisions were not to list an application for leave to appeal to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal and not to hear Wecker's case in the Anti-Discrimination Board. The complaints to the Anti-Discrimination Board were related to alleged discrimination against Wecker by the University of New South Wales. The delegate filed a Notice of Objection to Competency on 11 October 2013, submitting that the Federal Court did not have jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Anti-Discrimination Board under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) (ADJR Act). The central legal issue was whether the decisions of the Anti-Discrimination Board were subject to review by the Federal Court under the ADJR Act. The Court found that the Anti-Discrimination Board was not a "Commonwealth authority" as defined in the ADJR Act, and therefore the decisions of the Board were not subject to review by the Federal Court. The Court held that the Anti-Discrimination Board is constituted under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and not under a Commonwealth Act, and thus is not a Commonwealth authority. Furthermore, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is not mentioned in Schedule 3 of the ADJR Act, and therefore the decisions of the Board are not subject to review by the Federal Court under the ADJR Act. The Court rejected Wecker's argument that the Federal Court has jurisdiction to review decisions made by Commonwealth authorities established under state acts. The Court held that the definition of "enactment" in the ADJR Act must be read in conjunction with Schedule 3, and since the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is not mentioned in Schedule 3, the decisions of the Board are not subject to review by the Federal Court. Consequently, the Court dismissed Wecker's application for judicial review.

The Court orders that the application filed on 16 September 2013 be dismissed. No order as to costs is made.