Ritchie v Intersuisse Ltd [2009] NSWADT 57

Ritchie v Intersuisse Ltd [2009] NSWADT 57

Leave was refused because the complaint had no reasonable prospects of being substantiated. The Tribunal accepted for the purposes of the application that Mr Ritchie had a disability and that Intersuisse provided services, but found no basis to infer that the sale of shares or the manner of service was because of disability. Mr Durack had no knowledge of Mr Ritchie's psychiatric disability, the relevant conduct was a single conversation in which Mr Durack carried out Mr Ritchie's clear instructions to sell, and the treatment was consistent with Mr Ritchie's nominated aggressive investor profile. A person without Mr Ritchie's disability would have been treated in the same way.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 January 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave / Application for Leave Under S 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'stockbroking and Investment Advice' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint']
['equal Opportunity' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'stockbroking and Investment Advice' 'leave to Proceed With Declined Complaint']

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 / Application for Leave Under S 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted for Mr Ritchie's declined disability discrimination complaint to proceed before the Tribunal." 'Whether the alleged conduct by Intersuisse through Mr Durack had reasonable prospects of being found to be direct disability discrimination in the provision of services.' "Whether there was evidence linking the alleged treatment to Mr Ritchie's disability."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the complaint had no reasonable prospects of being substantiated. The Tribunal accepted for the purposes of the application that Mr Ritchie had a disability and that Intersuisse provided services, but found no basis to infer that the sale of shares or the manner of service was because of disability. Mr Durack had no knowledge of Mr Ritchie's psychiatric disability, the relevant conduct was a single conversation in which Mr Durack carried out Mr Ritchie's clear instructions to sell, and the treatment was consistent with Mr Ritchie's nominated aggressive investor profile. A person without Mr Ritchie's disability would have been treated in the same way.

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.']