Trau v The University of Sydney [2007] NSWADT 92

Trau v The University of Sydney [2007] NSWADT 92

Leave was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial reason for leave to be granted. The complaint lacked reasonable prospects of success because there was doubt whether the University provided a service of publishing letters to the editor, and, even if it did, the applicant had no direct evidence or evidence from which an inference could be drawn linking the refusal to publish his letter with the fact that he is Jewish. The Tribunal also declined to make a costs order because the applicant had exercised his statutory right to seek referral and, without legal advice or representation, could not be expected to appreciate that the complaint had no reasonable prospects...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed With a Complaint of Race Discrimination / Preliminary Matter
Outcome
Leave to proceed was refused; the respondent's application for a costs order was not granted.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'ethno Religious Origin' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity Law'] ['race Discrimination' 'ethno Religious Origin' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'costs']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Proceed With a Complaint of Race Discrimination / Preliminary Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted leave under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 to proceed with a complaint declined as lacking in substance.' 'Whether publication of letters to the editor of the Sydney Alumni Magazine was a service provided by the respondent within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether the respondent refused to provide such a service to the applicant on the ground that he was Jewish.' 'Whether circumstances justified a costs order against the applicant under s 110 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate a substantial reason for leave to be granted. The complaint lacked reasonable prospects of success because there was doubt whether the University provided a service of publishing letters to the editor, and, even if it did, the applicant had no direct evidence or evidence from which an inference could be drawn linking the refusal to publish his letter with the fact that he is Jewish. The Tribunal also declined to make a costs order because the applicant had exercised his statutory right to seek referral and, without legal advice or representation, could not be expected to appreciate that the complaint had no reasonable prospects...

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed was refused; the respondent's application for a costs order was not granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.']