In 2002, Wesley Mission refused to accept an application for foster parenting from a male same-sex couple (known as OV & OW) on the grounds of their sexuality.

PIAC took their case to the NSW Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT), which found that this refusal constituted discrimination in the provision of a service on the grounds of sexuality.

The ruling found that Wesley Mission was not entitled to rely on the ‘religious bodies’ exception in s 56 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1976 (NSW).

Wesley Mission appealed the ADT’s decision to the ADT Appeal Panel. The Appeal Panel found that the word “religion” had a different meaning from that given to it by the ADT and sent the matter back to the ADT for re-hearing.

PIAC’s clients appealed from the decision of the ADT Appeal Panel to the Court of Appeal. That appeal was successful and the matter was remitted to the ADT for further determination on 6 July 2010. The ADT conducted a further hearing on 21 September 2010. In December 2010, the ADT found in favour of Wesley Mission.

The Attorney General of NSW has appeared as an intervener before both the Appeal Panel and the Court of Appeal, arguing against PIAC’s clients.

Further information:  OV v QZ (No 2) [2008] NSWADT 115

Members of the Board of the Wesley Mission Council v OW and OV [2009] NSWADTAP 5 (27 January 2009)

OV & OW v MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF THE WESLEY MISSION COUNCIL [2010] NSWCA 155 (6 July 2010)

OV &  OW were represented in the ADT, the ADT Appeal Panel by PIAC and Chris Ronalds SC of Frederick Jordan Chambers and Ms Rachel Pepper (now Justice Pepper ). In the Court of Appeal and remitted proceedings, OV & OW were represented by PIAC and Chris Ronalds SC and Anna Perigo of Frederick Jordan Chambers.