Whippy v The University of Sydney

In the matter of Whippy v The University of Sydney, the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) by engaging in unlawful direct discrimination on the ground of race. The dispute was brought before the court following a decision by the Delegate of the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board of NSW to decline the plaintiff's complaint under section 89B(2)(a) of the Act. The plaintiff sought judicial review of the Delegate's decision, claiming that it was made on an impermissible basis.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Delegate had jurisdiction to decline the plaintiff's complaint under section 89B(2)(a) of the Act. A further issue was whether the Delegate's power to decline the complaint depended upon the establishment of a jurisdictional fact that no part of the conduct complained of could amount to a contravention of the Act. The court also needed to determine if the Delegate had established that jurisdictional fact and if there was evidence to support the Delegate's second reason for declining the complaint. The court considered these questions in the context of the administrative law framework governing judicial review of decisions made by delegates of statutory authorities.

The court found that the Delegate did not fall into jurisdictional error in declining the plaintiff's complaint. It was held that the Delegate's power to decline a complaint under section 89B(2)(a) did not depend on the establishment of a jurisdictional fact. The court also found that there was evidence to support the Delegate's second reason for declining the complaint. Therefore, the Delegate's decision was upheld, and the plaintiff's application for judicial review was dismissed. The court also noted that the motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff had been dismissed with the consent of both parties, as it no longer served any purpose.

In summary, the court upheld the Delegate's decision to decline the plaintiff's complaint and dismissed the plaintiff's application for judicial review. The court found that the Delegate had not erred in law and that there was evidence to support the Delegate's reasons for declining the complaint. The motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiff was also dismissed with the consent of both parties.