Case: Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62 ; (2003) 217 CLR 92
Outcome: cited
While I accept this approach, and propose to consider the applicant's claims of discrimination separately under s 6 and s 9 DD Act , in my view interpreting the sections as operating independently does not mean that they are to be interpreted in isolation, either from each other or the balance of the DD Act . As was pointed out by Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ in Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62 ; (2003) 217 CLR 92 at 148, in considering provisions of the DD Act : "Each of these particular questions can be answered only by giving consideration to the relevant provisions of the Act, understood, as they must be, in the context of the Act as a whole ." (emphasis added) 31 So far as relevant in this case, s 4(1) DD Act defines "disability" in relation to a person as: ... ... ... (g) a disorder, illness or disease that affects a person's thought processes, perception of reality, emotions or judgment or that results in disturbed behaviour. 32 In summary, the applicant has submitted that, in addition to substance abuse disorder and dependence, he suffers a disability in the nature of a personality disorder, which is a disability within the meaning of s 4(1)(g). The respondent conceded in submissions, both written and oral, that the applicant did suffer a disability, however there was some conflict in the medical evidence as to the exact nature of the disability suffered by the applicant. Notwithstanding the concession as to existence of a disability, Mr Murdoch for the respondent submitted that there is a need for the Court to come to a factual conclusion as to the nature of the applicant's disability, because the concept of alleviation of a disability in the meaning of s 9 DD Act (upon which the applicant's case to a significant degree rests) can only be considered properly and effectively in this case in light of a precise, factual decision as to the disability held by applicant (TS p 286 ll 38-45). I agree. 33 At the hearing, expert evidence as to the nature of the applicant's disability was given by consultant psychiatrists Dr Paul Trott and Dr Alston Unwin. There was no dispute as to the expertise of either Dr Trott or Dr Unwin. 34 The evidence was that the applicant's disability was either: (a) a personality disorder of the mixed type. This was the diagnosis of Dr Trott at p 6 of his report dated 25 February 2005 (attached to Dr Trott's affidavit sworn 20 December 2005). Both affidavit and oral evidence of Dr Trott were called by the applicant (b) alternatively, schizo-typal personality disorder. This was the diagnosis of Dr Unwin on p 8 of his report dated 11 January 2006 (attached to Dr Unwin's affidavit sworn 20 June 2006). Both affidavit and oral evidence of Dr Unwin were called by the respondent. 35 In providing their expert opinions as to the personality disorder suffered by the applicant, Dr Trott and Dr Unwin referred to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed text revision, American Psychiatric Association Washington, 2000) ("DSM-IV"), as a reference providing authoritative definition of personality orders. General diagnostic criteria for a personality disorder are there defined as: a. an enduring pattern of inner experience and behaviour that deviates markedly from the expectations of the individual's culture. This pattern is manifested in two (or more) of the following areas: (1) cognition (ie ways of perceiving and interpreting self, other people, and events) (2) affectivity (ie the range, intensity, lability and appropriateness of emotional response) (3) interpersonal functioning (4) impulse control b. the enduring pattern is inflexible and pervasive across a broad range of personal and social situations c. the enduring pattern leads to clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning d. the pattern is stable and of long duration, and its onset can be traced back at least to adolescence or early adulthood e. the enduring pattern is not better accounted for as a manifestation or consequence of another mental disorder f. the enduring pattern is not due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (eg a drug of abuse, a medication) or a general medical condition(eg head trauma). 36 A personality disorder as defined by DSM-IV, and as diagnosed by each expert, clearly satisfies the definition of "disability" within s 4(1)(g) DD Act . Dr Trott