Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network; Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network; Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network; Dezfouli v NSW Ombudsman

Power to appoint a GAL and principles governing the exercise of that power

1. Section 45(4) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) states: 45 Representation of parties … (4)] The Tribunal may: (a) appoint a person to act as guardian ad litem for a party, or (b) appoint a person to represent a party, or (c) order that a party be separately represented. …
2. The Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act and the regulations and rules made under that Act, provide no express guidance about the factors to be taken into account in exercising the power conferred by s 45(4).
3. NCAT has issued a guideline about the appointment of GALs: Representatives for people who cannot represent themselves (GALs), August 2017 (the Guideline).
4. The Guideline defines a GAL to mean (at [3]): [A] person who the Tribunal appoints to represent a party who is totally or partly incapable of representing themselves in a Tribunal case. The representative is called a GAL for short. The GAL speaks for the party at all Tribunal hearings and resolution processes such as mediations. The GAL is not a lawyer but may arrange to have a lawyer represent them.
5. The Guideline explains the role of a GAL at [12]: [T]o resolve the case or run the hearing on behalf of the party. The GAL must always act in a way that is in the best interests of the party. The GAL does not have to do what the party wants them to do. If the parties agree to settle the case, the Tribunal must take into account the interests of the party being represented by a GAL before approving any settlement.
6. The GAL may either be a relative or friend of the subject person or a member of the GAL Panel managed by the Office of the General Counsel of the NSW Department of Justice: at [7].
7. The Guideline lists the factors the Tribunal must take into account when deciding whether to appoint a GAL: 10. The Tribunal will take into account: a) the "guiding principle" of the Act which is to facilitate the just quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings b) the nature and extent of the party's incapacity c) the effect of any incapacity on the party's ability to represent themselves. 11. In particular, the Tribunal will take into account the effect of the party's incapacity on their ability to: a) understand the nature of the matter or the issues in dispute b) present their views c) respond to the other party's arguments d) act in their own best interests.
8. In 2011, one of NCAT's predecessors, the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT), exercised the power to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli: Dezfouli v Corrective Services [2011] NSWADT 11 (the 2011 Dezfouli decision). That appointment was made under the now repealed Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW), which gave the ADT power to appoint a representative for a party "if it appears to the Tribunal that a party is an incapacitated person": s 71(4). Section 71(7) of that Act defined an "incapacitated person" to include: a person who is totally or partially incapable of representing himself or herself in proceedings before the Tribunal because the person is intellectually, physically, psychologically or sensorily disabled, of advanced age, a mentally incapacitated person or otherwise disabled.
9. In its reasons for the 2011 Dezfouli decision, the Tribunal cited with approval Slaveski v State of Victoria and Others [2009] VSC 596 in which Kyrou J posed at [32] a series of questions that his Honour considered might be relevant to the determination of whether a self-represented plaintiff has the requisite capacity to conduct legal proceedings: (a) Does the plaintiff understand the factual framework for his or her claims and the type of evidence required to succeed in his or her claims? (b) Is the plaintiff capable of understanding what is relevant to the proceeding and what is not relevant when these matters are explained to him or her? (c) Is the plaintiff capable of assessing the impact of particular evidence on his or her case? (d) Is the plaintiff able to understand the Court processes and the basic rules for conducting his or her case when these matters are explained to him or her? (e) Is the plaintiff able to understand Court rulings made during the trial when they are explained to him or her? (f) Assuming the plaintiff is able to understand Court processes, the basic rules of conducting his or her case and Court rulings, is he or she capable of complying with them and directions given by the judge? (g) Does the plaintiff understand the roles of counsel for the defendant, witnesses and the judge and is he or she capable of respecting those roles and allowing the relevant individuals to discharge their duties without inappropriate interference or abuse? (h) Is the plaintiff able to control his or her emotions and behave in a non-abusive and non-threatening manner when events do not go his or her way during the trial (such as when adverse rulings are made by the judge, questions are asked in cross-examination on sensitive issues or unfavourable answers are given by witnesses)? (i) Does the plaintiff have an insight into the possible adverse consequences of his or her behaviour in court, including delay in the resolution of the claims, the defendant incurring additional costs that the plaintiff might have to pay if the claims are unsuccessful and the tying up of scarce judicial resources when these matters are explained to him or her? (j) Does the plaintiff understand that he or she could possibly lose the case in whole or in part when this matter is explained to him or her? (k) If the cumulative effect of the evidence is such that a lay person of reasonable intelligence and common sense would form the view that a particular claim will fail, would the plaintiff be capable of forming such a view? (l) Is the plaintiff capable of assessing any settlement proposal on its merits, having regard to the state of the evidence, the parties' submissions and other developments in the proceeding as at the time the proposal is made? (m) If the trial is long and complex, is there a risk that the stress and pressure of the litigation might harm the plaintiff's physical or mental health?
10. After considering each of these questions the Tribunal concluded that Mr Dezfouli met the definition of "incapacitated person" in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act and decided to exercise the discretion to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli.
11. More recently NCAT decided to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli in proceedings involving a complaint made by Mr Dezfouli, again under the Anti-Discrimination Act, against his then treating psychiatrist: Dezfouli v Pulley [2014] NSWCATAD 1. The Tribunal did not elaborate on the reasons for making that appointment.
12. The questions posed by Kyrou J in Slaveski (set out in [15] above) have been applied by the NSW Supreme Court in Smilevska v Smilevska [2015] NSWSC 1794 at [32]; Mao v AMP Superannuation Ltd; Mao v BT Funds Management Ltd [2014] NSWSC 1794 at [104]; Re WS [2017] NSWSC 745 at [31]. See also TA v IA [2017] NSWSC 1597.

Medical evidence about Mr Dezfouli's capacity to represent himself

1. Mr Dezfouli contends that he has capacity to represent himself in the substantive proceedings. In support he relies on reports prepared by psychiatrists Dr Tony Mastroianni and Professor Paul Mullen and the opinion of his current treating psychiatrist, Dr Sathish Dayalan.
2. In a short report addressed to the Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT) dated 23 August 2006, Mr Dezfouli's treating psychiatrist since January 2003, Dr Tony Mastroianni, wrote that in the opinion of Mr Dezfouli's treating team Mr Dezfouli met the "legal criteria for fitness to plead".
3. In a report dated 10 May 2005, Professor Mullen wrote that during a one hour interview, Mr Dezfouli showed a range of emotional responses which were "appropriate to the interactions" and exhibited "some sensitivity to my feelings". Professor Mullen wrote that this made a "diagnosis of chronic paranoid schizophrenia somewhat unlikely". In a subsequent and more detailed report addressed to Dr Mastroianni, Professor Mullen opined that Mr Dezfouli was probably fit to plead but expressed concern that Mr Dezfouli might fall into the error of conducting his own defence and if he did, "he could easily allow his deeply felt beliefs about his exposure to injustice and misuse to intrude, to his own disadvantage ... in the trial process". Professor Mullen wrote that Mr Dezfouli "firmly believes" that he has been subjected to injustice and mistreatment and is "caught up in his pursuit of justice and personal vindication". He wrote that Mr Dezfouli obtains considerable satisfaction from using his knowledge of the legal and complaints processes to not just further his cause but to "plague those who have impeded his quest, or harmed him along the way". Professor Mullen wrote that this pattern of querulous behaviour had escalated in the prison environment. He made a number of recommendations to deal with this behaviour.
4. Dr Dayalan commenced treating Mr Dezfouli in February 2017 and has subsequently reviewed him on a fortnightly basis. In addition, Dr Dayalan has attended hearings of the MHRT where Mr Dezfouli has represented himself. In a brief report dated 23 October 2018, Dr Dayalan wrote that Mr Dezfouli's diagnosis of schizophrenia (characterised by persecutory grandiose and referential delusions and thought disorder) is under partial remission due to medication. He wrote that in his interactions with Mr Dezfouli he "regularly demonstrates the ability to comprehend information provided to him, register the information and utilise that information in his decision making". Dr Dayalan concluded that in his opinion Mr Dezfouli has capacity to represent himself in NCAT hearings.
5. At a preliminary hearing on 13 November 2018, I directed Justice Health to give to Dr Dayalan a document listing the ADT and NCAT matters in which Mr Dezfouli was an applicant and the resultant decisions. A copy of that document is at Annexure A to these reasons (the history of proceedings document). It reveals that in the ten years to 2018, NCAT and the ADT made 32 decisions where Mr Dezfouli was the applicant or, on appeal, the respondent. Of the 24 decisions involving substantive applications, including applications for leave for the complaint to proceed in the Tribunal, Mr Dezfouli, was unsuccessful in 19 matters and partly successful in five matters.
6. In a supplementary report dated 7 December 2018, Dr Dayalan wrote that he has reviewed the history of proceedings document and noted the unsuccessful outcomes for Mr Dezfouli. He wrote that his comments relate only to Mr Dezfouli's capacity to represent himself; not his proficiency to do so. He wrote that, based on his observations of Mr Dezfouli's participation in hearings in the MHRT, Mr Dezfouli:

• understands the nature of the hearings and the issues being considered;
• demonstrates understanding of the relevant legislation and is able to refer to it "in an appropriate manner";
• is able to consider any information presented by other parties during the hearing; and
• does not have difficulty with articulating his opinions and counter arguments raised by other parties.

1. Dr Dayalan wrote that it was a matter for NCAT to decide if "these observations at MHRT Hearings are transferable and ultimately determine his capacity to represent himself".
2. In the 2011 Dezfouli decision the Tribunal had before it conflicting medical opinions about Mr Dezfouli's capacity to represent himself. In those proceedings, Mr Dezfouli alleged, among other things, that he had been subjected to sexual harassment by correctional officers. Eminent and experienced psychiatrists, Drs Carolyn Skinner and Stephen Westmore, agreed that Mr Dezfouli suffered from a psychotic mental illness characterised by delusions but disagreed as to whether Mr Dezfouli was capable of representing himself in those proceedings. They agreed that Mr Dezfouli appeared to have sufficient knowledge of the law to understand the nature of the proceedings and to prepare the necessary paperwork. The central point of disagreement between Drs Skinner and Westmore was whether Mr Dezfouli's perception of his treatment by authority figures was affected by his delusional beliefs. Dr Skinner was of the opinion that his perception of his treatment was affected by his delusional beliefs and for that reason Mr Dezfouli lacked capacity to represent himself. Dr Westmore, on the other hand, emphasised that Mr Dezfouli's psychosis and paranoia did not necessarily result in him being incapacitated. He conceded that Mr Dezfouli's ideas might be paranoid and that he continues to express persecutory beliefs, but in Dr Westmore's view those beliefs are not necessarily delusional. Also relevant to Dr Westmore's opinion was his assessment that Mr Dezfouli's complaints of discrimination and harassment were not bizarre or peculiar.

Should the power to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli be exercised?

1. It is well established that the question of whether a person has capacity is "issue specific". In Gibbons v Wright [1954] HCA 17; (1954) 91 CLR 423 at 437, the principle was expressed as follows: The law does not prescribe any fixed standard of sanity as requisite for the validity of all transactions. It requires, in relation to each particular matter or piece of business transacted, that each party shall have such soundness of mind as to be capable of understanding the general nature of what he is doing by his participation. ...
2. See also Masterman-Lister v Brutton & Co [2003] 1 WLR 1511; [2002] EWCA Civ 1889 at [74]; Dalle-Molle v Manos (2004) 88 SASR 193; [2004] SASC 102; Re WS [2017] NSWSC 745 at [25]; Guthrie v Spence (2009) 78 NSWLR 225; [2009] NSWCA 369 at [174]-[175]; TA v IA [2017] NSWSC 1597 at [149]-[150].
3. In approaching the question of whether a GAL should be appointed for Mr Dezfouli, I have taken into account the considerations listed in the Guideline at [10] and [11] together with the questions posed by Kyrou J in Slaveski.
4. That Mr Dezfouli has a psychiatric illness is not determinative of the question of whether he is capable of representing himself in these proceedings. Nor is the fact that in 2003 he was found by the MHRT to be unfit to stand trial for the offences of manslaughter and malicious damage to property, and the following year found by a jury of the Supreme Court to be not guilty of those offences by reason of mental illness: see Dezfouli v R [2007] NSWCCA 86 at [6]-[14]. Nor is it determinative that in 2011 and 2014 differently constituted Tribunals found Mr Dezfouli to be incapable of representing himself in proceedings concerning complaints made by him under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The issue I must determine is whether he is now incapable of representing himself in the substantive proceedings.
5. The material available to assist me to make that determination is the history referred to above, the summary of the outcome of proceedings initiated by Mr Dezfouli in the ADT and NCAT, the written opinions expressed by psychiatrists who have assessed Mr Dezfouli and my own observations of Mr Dezfouli's conduct in these and other proceedings in which I have presided: Dezfouli v Health Care Complaints Commission [2018] NSWCATAD 245 and Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network [2015] NSWCATAD 159.
6. The available evidence indicates that there has been a significant improvement in Mr Dezfouli's condition since he was assessed by Drs Westmore and Skinner in 2011. Dr Dayalan is of the view that as a result of medication the condition is now in partial remission. I note that while Dr Dayalan has taken into account the quantitative information recorded in Annexure A, he has not addressed one issue addressed by Drs Skinner and Westmore, namely whether Mr Dezfouli's perception of mistreatment by authority figures is affected by his delusional beliefs.
7. My observations of Mr Dezfouli's conduct in these and other proceedings are broadly consistent with those made by Dr Dayalan (see [24] above). Based on those observations, together with the material referred to above, significantly Dr Dayalan's opinion that Mr Dezfouli's condition is now in partial remission, I have concluded that the answers to most of the questions posed by Kyrou J in Slaveski is, "Yes". Mr Dezfouli appears to understand the factual framework for the complaints referred by the President. He appears to be capable of understanding the elements that need to be established to substantiate allegations of a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act. He appears to be capable of understanding Tribunal processes and the basic rules for conducting the case. He appears to be able to understand rulings made by the Tribunal and is capable of complying with them. He appears to be capable of understanding the roles of the parties, their representatives and witnesses. During proceedings he is generally able to control his emotions and conduct himself in an appropriate manner. For example, he has cooperated throughout the proceedings and been respectful to the representatives of the respondent parties and myself. In addition, it could not be said that Mr Dezfouli engages in conduct which unnecessarily extends the time for hearing or in a manner which undermines the guiding principle - the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in dispute: s 36(1) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act.
8. Weighing against these factors are some matters which arguably raise questions about Mr Dezfouli's capacity to represent himself in these proceedings. First, notwithstanding Mr Dezfouli's very significant experience in proceedings in the ADT and NCAT, he appears to struggle to distinguish between assertion and evidence and to appreciate the need to adduce evidence to support his assertions of contraventions of the Anti-Discrimination Act. Second, he has a tendency to rely on a significant amount of material of no apparent relevance to the issues to be determined. For example, in the initiating complaint to the President which gave rise to proceedings 2018/00304290, in support of his allegations that he had been sexually harassed and victimised by Ms Thandie and discriminated against by Justice Health on the ground of disability in the area of services (2018/00304290), Mr Dezfouli provided a large number of documents of no apparent relevance to those allegations, relating instead to the conduct of the 2003 criminal proceedings and his treatment while in custody at that time. Third, he has a tendency to accuse decision-makers who make decisions which are unfavourable to him of being motivated by bias or improper purpose. In these proceedings, for example, Mr Dezfouli labelled my decision to request Dr Dayalan to provide a supplementary report as evidence of a "perversion of justice" warranting my referral to the NSW Judicial Commission. (See also, involving other Tribunal members, Dezfouli v Justice Health [2009] NSWADT 80, Dezfouli v Department of Corrective Services [2009] NSWADT 81 and Dezfouli v Justice Health [2008] NSWADTAP 72.)
9. While these factors may indicate a lack of capacity, equally they might indicate a lack of objective detachment from the proceedings and a lack of ability to adduce evidence relevant to the facts in issue, which in my experience are not uncommon attributes of self-represented parties.
10. On the available material I am not satisfied that Mr Dezfouli lacks capacity to represent himself in these proceedings. I have decided not to exercise the power to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli.

Orders 1. The Tribunal declines to exercise the power to appoint a GAL for Mr Dezfouli in matters 2018/00210540; 2018/00219164; 2018/00277136 and 2018/00304290. 2. Matters 2018/00210540, 2018/00219164, 2018/00277136 and 201800304290 are listed for directions hearing on 19 March 2019 at 2 pm.

Chronology of Cases and Outcomes: Saeed Dezfouli Tribunals:

• NSWADT - NSW South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal (1999-2013) (21 matters)
• NSWADTAP - New South Wales Administrative Decisions Tribunal Appeal Panel (1999-2013) (3 matters)
• NSWCATAD - New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal - Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division (2014 - to date) (11 matters) Tribunal Case Decision The Tribunal orders: (1) That the decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to documents identified as 10 and 21 is set aside. In substitution thereof a decision that: (a) the names of the persons other than the applicant, and other information which would identify those persons, in documents 10 and 21 are exempt; and 1 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2006] NSWADT 274 (21 September 2006) (b) within 28 days, the applicant be granted access to documents 10 and 21 with the names of those persons and the other identifying information being deleted. (2) That the decision of the respondent to refuse the applicant access to the document identified as 70 is set aside, and the matter remitted to the respondent under s63 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 for reconsideration. (3) That the decision of the respondent to give access to the applicant to documents 1-9, 11, 12, 16-20, 22-33, 36-45, 47-54, 56, 57, 59-61 and 63-69 with exempt matter deleted is affirmed (4) That the decision of the respondent to refuse access to documents 13, 14, 15, 34, 35, 46, 55, 58, and 62 is affirmed (5) That paragraphs 14, 42, 43, and 53 of these reasons be made available only to the respondent and its legal advisors, and not be made available to the applicant or published by the Tribunal 2 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2007] NSWADT 262 (8 November 2007) The application is dismissed. 3 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health and anor [2008] NSWADT 99 (15 January 2008) 1. Leave to proceed with the complaint of disability discrimination is refused 2. Leave to proceed with the complaint of sexual harassment is refused. 4 NSWADT Dezfouli v State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor [2008] NSWADT 122 (24 April 2008) Leave is refused. 5 NSWADT Dezfouli v State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor [2008] NSWADT 122 (24 April 2008) Leave is refused. 6 NSWADT Dezfouli v State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor (No.2) [2008] NSWADT 155 (28 May 2008) The application for a suppression order is refused. 7 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2008] NSWADT 175 (17 June 2008) The decisions under review are affirmed. 1. The subject matter of Mr Dezfouli 's complaints relates to the provision of 'services' within the Anti-Discrimination Act. 8 NSWADT Dezfouli v Department of Corrective Service & anor [2008] NSWADT 198 (21 July 2008) 2. Leave is granted for the complaint referred by the President to be amended to include allegations of victimisation. 3. The Applicant is to file with the Registry and serve on the Respondents a statement of the particulars of his claims of victimisation before or on 21 days from the date of this decision. 9 NSWADT Dezfouli v Department of Corrective Services [2008] NSWADT 277 (12 August 2008) 1. Leave is refused. 1. Leave to appeal is granted 10 NSWADTAP State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 69 (5 November 2008) 2. Leave is granted for the appeal to extend to the merits and for the Appellants to adduce further evidence 3. The appeal is allowed 4. Orders 1 and 2 of the Appeal Panel made on 8 August 2008 are discharged and the following order substituted: 'The Second Appellant is to be identified by the pseudonym "XXXX" alone in published reports of the decision in Dezfouli v State of New South Wales (Justice Health) and anor [2008] NSWADT 122.' 11 NSWADTAP Dezfouli v Justice Health [2008] NSWADTAP 72 (20 November 2008) 1. Leave to extend the appeal to the merits of the Tribunal's decision is refused 2. The Tribunal's decision dated 17 June 2008 is affirmed. 1. Leave to appeal is granted 2. The appeal is allowed in part 12 NSWADTAP Commissioner of Corrective Services v Dezfouli [2008] NSWADTAP 85 (23 December 2008) 3. Orders 1, 3 and 4 made by the Tribunal in its decision dated 21 July 2008 are set aside 4. The proceedings are remitted to the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted for hearing and determination in accordance with these reasons 5. The Tribunal is directed to give consideration to permitting the Applicant to characterise his complaint made under section 22F of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as one made under section 22J in addition to, or instead of, section 22F 6. The proceedings are listed for a Case Conference on a date to be fixed by the Registry. 13 NSWADT Dezfouli v Department of Corrective Services [2009] NSWADT 1 (7 January 2009) Leave is granted. 14 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2009] NSWADT 80 (16 April 2009) 1. Application to disqualify refused 2. Both matters are to be listed for a planning meeting on Tuesday 12 May at 11.45am. 15 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2009] NSWADT 97 (7 May 2009) This application is adjourned pending the outcome of the Tribunal's determination of the s 25(1b) issue in Tribunal File No 083188. 16 NSWADT Dezfouli v NSW Department of Corrective Services [2009] NSWADT 221 (19 August 2009) The decision under review is affirmed. 17 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 155 (22 June 2010) 1. Set aside the decision made on internal review, so as to grant Mr Dezfouli access to the entry in the progress notes timed at 0500 on 11 May 2007, with the exception of the name and signature of the Justice Health staff member who made that entry 2. Otherwise, the Tribunal affirms the initial decision made by Justice Health 21 December 2007. 18 NSWADT Dezfouli v Corrective Services, NSW [2010] NSWADT 156 (23 June 2010) In respect of both applications, on file numbers 073242 and 083008, the determinations made on internal review by the Agency are set aside, and remitted to the Agency for reconsideration in accordance with these reasons. 19 NSWADT Dezfouli v Justice Health [2010] NSWADT 167 (5 July 2010) The complaint is dismissed 1. Publication of the following evidence to Mr Dezfouli is prohibited: a) the oral evidence of Dr Keller; b) the emails, letters, statements and reports of Dr Keller dated 25 and 31 May 2010, 23 June 2010, July 2010 and 2 September 2010; (vol 1, tab C, vol 1, tab D) c) the documents in Volumes 2, 3 and 4 (Additional Material) of CSNSW's bundle of documents that were provided to Dr Skinner and Dr Westmore for the purposes of preparing their reports, but which were not provided to Mr Dezfouli except for: (i) type written letter from Mr Dezfouli to "NSW Police Officers" dated 28 November 2001 (vol 2, tab 1 and vol 2, tab 9(2)) (ii) letter dated 18 June 2007 from Mr Dezfouli to Mr Debnam; (vol 2, tab 8 and vol 1 tab D) (iii) letter from Mr Dezfouli to Morris Iemma, then Premier of NSW dated 3 July 2008; (vol 2, tab 11 and vol 1, tab D) 20 NSWADT Dezfouli v Corrective Services [2011] NSWADT 11 (19 January 2011) (iv) the 29 August 2003 alert (vol 1, tab D) (v) reasons for recommendations made by the Mental Health Review Tribunal dated 27 October 2004 (vol 2, tab 9(24) and vol 1, tab D) 2. Pursuant to section 71(4) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, the Tribunal orders that a person be appointed as the representative of Mr Dezfouli in relation to the following proceedings. a) File No. 081005 b) File No. 081091 c) File No. 081129 d) File No. 091113 The role of the representative is to act in the best interest of Mr Dezfouli . 3. The proceedings to be listed for a case conference on 31 January 2011 at 9.30am 21 NSWADT Dezfouli v Pulley [2013] NSWADT 223 (11 October 2013) Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of race discrimination to proceed. Leave is granted for Mr Dezfouli 's complaint to proceed. 22 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Pulley [2014] NSWCATAD 1; (17 January 2014) The Tribunal appoints a guardian ad litem to represent Mr Dezfouli . The matter is listed for a case conference on 5 March 2014 at 11.30 a 23 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network [2014] NSWCATAD 188 (5 November 2014) The complaint of discrimination on the grounds of disability is dismissed. 24 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network [2015] NSWCATAD 11 (22 January 2015) Leave is given for that part of Mr Dezfouli's complaint relating to access to take-away food to proceed. Leave is refused for that part of Mr Dezfouli's complaint relating to access to escorted day leave to proceed. 25 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network [2015] NSWCATAD 159 (3 August 2015) 1. The complaint lodged by Mr Dezfouli with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board on 28 April 2014, is dismissed. 2. That part of the complaint lodged by Mr Dezfouli with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board on 9 January 2014 in relation to the ordering of takeaway food, is dismissed. (1) The decision of the respondent to refuse access to the admiralty rating contained in the Australian Federal Police Information Report registered 23 December 2015 is set aside. 26 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health & Forensic Mental Health Network [2018] NSWCATAD 11 (15 January 2018) (2) The respondent is to release to the applicant the redacted admiralty rating. (3) The decision under review is otherwise affirmed. 27 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network [2018] NSWCATAD 83 (16 April 2018) 1. Leave to proceed with the complaints of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination is refused. 28 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (No 6) [2018] NSWCATAD 161 (27 July 2018) Leave to proceed with the complaint of victimisation is refused. 29 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (No 7) [2018] NSWCATAD 162 (27 July 2018) Leave to proceed with the complaint of victimisation is refused. 30 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (No 8) [2018] NSWCATAD 163 (30 July 2018) Leave to proceed with the complaint of disability discrimination is refused. 31 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Justice Health and Forensic Mental Health Network (No 9) [2018] NSWCATAD 170 (6 August 2018) 1. The disclosure of the second respondent's name is prohibited. 2. Leave to proceed with the complaints of sexual harassment is refused 32 NSWCATAD Dezfouli v Health Care Complaints Commission [2018] NSWCATAD 245 (19 October 2018) Leave for the complaint to proceed is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. Registrar DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 20 February 2019