Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90

Braiding v Charles Sturt University [2016] NSWCATAD 90

Mr Braiding failed to provide a cogent legal basis or sufficient evidence for any of his complaints. The Tribunal found that the University's $100 fee policy applied equally to all students and there was no evidence that the University's actions were on the ground of disability or constituted victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Consequently, the complaints were dismissed as lacking in substance and not reasonably arguable.

Parties
Applicant: Gerard Braiding; Respondent: Charles Sturt University
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Disability Discrimination and Victimisation / Application for Summary Dismissal
Outcome
Complaints dismissed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Victimisation, Summary Dismissal, Procedural Fairness, University Policy
Anti Discrimination Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure Disability Discrimination Victimisation Summary Dismissal Procedural Fairness University Policy

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gerard Braiding

Applicant

Charles Sturt University

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint of Disability Discrimination and Victimisation / Application for Summary Dismissal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the complaint of disability discrimination and victimisation should be dismissed as lacking in substance, not disclosing a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), or for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Braiding failed to provide a cogent legal basis or sufficient evidence for any of his complaints. The Tribunal found that the University's $100 fee policy applied equally to all students and there was no evidence that the University's actions were on the ground of disability or constituted victimisation under the Anti-Discrimination Act. Consequently, the complaints were dismissed as lacking in substance and not reasonably arguable.

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed

Orders

  • The complaints are dismissed.