Nederhof v Lawson Bowling Club Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 88

Nederhof v Lawson Bowling Club Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 88

Leave was refused because it was highly unlikely that the complaint would be substantiated if it proceeded to hearing. Although the club provided a service and the applicant was refused permission to remain, and although the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Act, it was unlikely he could prove that the bartender knew of the disability, treated him less favourably because of it, or that disability was one of the reasons for the refusal. The likely reason for the request to leave was the bartender's suspicion that the applicant was intoxicated and should not remain on the premises in accordance with responsible service of alcohol requirements.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for a Complaint of Disability Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint' 'responsible Service of Alcohol' 'differential Treatment' 'causation']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint' 'responsible Service of Alcohol' 'differential Treatment' 'causation']

Case Brief

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

Application for Leave for a Complaint of Disability Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the applicant's declined disability discrimination complaint to proceed." 'Whether the complaint had sufficient merit, including whether the applicant could prove less favourable treatment on the ground of disability and causation.' "Whether the respondent's employee knew of the applicant's disability when asking him to leave the club."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because it was highly unlikely that the complaint would be substantiated if it proceeded to hearing. Although the club provided a service and the applicant was refused permission to remain, and although the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Act, it was unlikely he could prove that the bartender knew of the disability, treated him less favourably because of it, or that disability was one of the reasons for the refusal. The likely reason for the request to leave was the bartender's suspicion that the applicant was intoxicated and should not remain on the premises in accordance with responsible service of alcohol requirements.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • ["Leave is refused for the applicant's complaint of disability discrimination to proceed."]