Wilde v University of Sydney [2003] NSWADT 206

Wilde v University of Sydney [2003] NSWADT 206

The complaint was not substantiated because the Tribunal rejected or did not accept the applicant's key factual allegations, found that several alleged incidents did not fall within the substantive prohibitions in Part 3A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and was not satisfied that the respondent or its employees...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 September 2003
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Transgender Discrimination in Education and Goods or Services Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter Before the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal
Outcome
Complaint dismissed.
Legal Topics
['transgender Discrimination' 'educational Authority Discrimination' 'goods and Services Discrimination' 'access to University Grounds' 'student Accommodation' 'employer Liability for Employees']
['discrimination Law' 'education Law' 'administrative Law'] ['transgender Discrimination' 'educational Authority Discrimination' 'goods and Services Discrimination' 'access to University Grounds' 'student Accommodation' 'employer Liability for Employees']

Source-derived case record

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

Complaint of Transgender Discrimination in Education and Goods or Services Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter Before the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's conduct in seven alleged incidents fell within s38K(2) and/or s38M(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." 'Whether any conduct falling within those provisions constituted discrimination on transgender grounds within s38B of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' "Whether employees' conduct was conduct for which the respondent was legally liable under s53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." "Whether the applicant's allegations concerning the incidents were substantiated on the evidence."]

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint was not substantiated because the Tribunal rejected or did not accept the applicant's key factual allegations, found that several alleged incidents did not fall within the substantive prohibitions in Part 3A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, and was not satisfied that the respondent or its employees treated the applicant less favourably on the ground that she was transgender.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Complaint dismissed' 'Within 28 days of the date of this order the respondent is to file and serve written submissions in support of any application it proposes to make for costs.' "Within 14 days of receiving the respondent's written submissions in relation to costs the applicant is to file and serve written...