Wecker v The Delegate (the decision maker) to the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board

This matter concerned an application for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a summons seeking judicial review of a decision by the President of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Board. The applicant, Wecker, had lodged a complaint with the Board, but the President declined to accept it under section 89B(2)(b) of the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977* (NSW) on the basis that the conduct complained of occurred more than 12 months prior to the complaint being lodged. The applicant sought to challenge this decision, arguing that the complaint should have been referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. The appeal was heard by Emmett and Gleeson JJA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether leave to appeal should be granted, which in turn depended on whether the applicant had suffered from a reasonably arguable injustice. This required the court to consider whether the President's decision to decline the complaint under section 89B(2)(b) was erroneous, and whether the Administrative Decisions Tribunal possessed the power to review such a decision. The court also considered the relevance of the *Limitation Act 1969* (NSW) to decisions made under section 89B(2)(b).

The court reasoned that the Administrative Decisions Tribunal had no power to review a decision made under section 89B(2)(b) of the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977*. It further held that the *Limitation Act 1969* was irrelevant to the determination of whether a complaint should be accepted or declined under section 89B(2)(b). Consequently, the court found no error in the primary judge's determination that the Tribunal lacked the power to review the President's decision. As there was no reasonably arguable injustice, leave to appeal was refused. The applicant was granted an extension of time to file and serve the summons seeking leave to appeal, but was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.