Australia, Sept. 9 -- New South Wales Land and Environment Court issued text of the following judgement on Aug. 8:

1. On 25 March 2025 Mr Vance complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board about conduct of EML NSW Limited (EML) and the Trustee for Illawarra Health Service Unit Trust (Illawarra Occupational Health).

2. icare (insurance and care NSW) is a government organisation that delivers insurance and care services to people with workplace injuries under the NSW workers compensation scheme. icare contracts "claims service providers" such as EML to manage claims on its behalf. A claims service provider co-ordinates the benefits and services a worker is entitled to receive. EML is the agent of icare managing Mr Vance's workers compensation claim.

3. From July 2020 to May 2021 Illawarra Occupational Health was the "rehabilitation service provider" engaged to assist in the management of Mr Vance's rehabilitation and return to work plan.

4. Mr Vance complained that both EML and Illawarra Occupational Health had discriminated against him on the ground of his disability by refusing to provide him with services or in the terms on which they provided him with services: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 49M. I accept, for the purposes of this hearing that Mr Vance has a disability.

5. The President accepted for investigation one complaint of disability discrimination in the provision of services against EML for the period 25 March 2024 to 25 March 2025: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 89B. The President accepted one complaint of disability discrimination against Illawarra Occupational Health for the same period. Following investigation, the President declined both complaints as "lacking in substance" under s 92(1)(a)(i) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

6. Mr Vance exercised his right to require the President to refer these two complaints of disability discrimination in the provision of services for the period 25 March 2024 to 25 March 2025 to the Tribunal: Anti-Discrimination Act, s 92 and s 93A.

7. A complaint that is referred to the Tribunal on the requirement of a complainant "may not be the subject of proceedings before the Tribunal without the leave of the Tribunal": Anti-Discrimination Act, s 96(1). The word "leave" means "permission". If the complaint does not disclose a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act, it will not be "fair and just" for the complaint to go ahead: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales & Ors [2009] NSWSC 143.

8. I have addressed three preliminary issues at the end of these reasons.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://www.caselaw.nsw.gov.au/decision/19883809df6d43937e2490f8)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.