Considine v Legal Aid Commission of NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 43

Considine v Legal Aid Commission of NSW [2022] NSWCATAD 43

The Tribunal found the safe room to be a 'service' under s 33 ADA, but the refusal to admit Mr Considine was done in good faith for the purpose of or in the course of a certified special needs program for women victims of domestic violence, and thus exempt from the operation of s 33 by s 126A ADA. As there was no evidence of bad faith, the complaint did not disclose a contravention of the Act.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Considine; First Respondent: Legal Aid Commission of NSW; Second Respondent: NSW Department of Communities & Justice; Third Respondent: Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Administrative Complaint / Summary Dismissal Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Gender Discrimination, Provision of Goods and Services, Statutory Exemption for Special Needs Programs, Summary Disposal of Proceedings
Anti Discrimination Law Administrative Law Gender Discrimination Provision of Goods and Services Statutory Exemption for Special Needs Programs Summary Disposal of Proceedings

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 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Considine

Applicant

Legal Aid Commission of NSW

First Respondent

NSW Department of Communities & Justice

Second Respondent

Northern Rivers Community Legal Centre

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Complaint / Summary Dismissal Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether exclusion from the safe room constituted unlawful discrimination on the basis of gender under s 33 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the exclusion was exempt under s 126A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) as done for the purposes of or in the course of a certified special needs program
  3. 3 Whether the conduct was done in good faith

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the safe room to be a 'service' under s 33 ADA, but the refusal to admit Mr Considine was done in good faith for the purpose of or in the course of a certified special needs program for women victims of domestic violence, and thus exempt from the operation of s 33 by s 126A ADA. As there was no evidence of bad faith, the complaint did not disclose a contravention of the Act.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • The summary dismissal application is to be determined on the papers without the need for a hearing, pursuant to s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)
  • The whole complaint is dismissed pursuant to s 102 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)