Danilov v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 70

Danilov v Transport for NSW [2020] NSWCATAD 70

Leave was refused because the available information showed that younger persons entitled to other concession cards were subject to the same or similar requirements when replacement cards were needed, so the applicant had remote prospects of proving that he was treated less favourably than younger persons or that one...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed With Complaint of Age Discrimination Under S 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Leave to Proceed After President Declined Complaint as Lacking in Substance and Referral Requested Under S 93 a
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['age Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'gold Opal Card' 'concession Travel']
['equal Opportunity' 'anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law'] ['age Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'gold Opal Card' 'concession Travel']

Source-derived case record

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 to Proceed With Complaint of Age Discrimination Under S 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Leave to Proceed After President Declined Complaint as Lacking in Substance and Referral Requested Under S 93 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 for the applicant's age discrimination complaint to proceed." 'Whether the respondent treated the applicant less favourably on the ground of age in the terms on which a replacement Gold Opal Card was provided.' 'Whether the requirement to order a replacement Gold Opal Card online and pay full fares until receipt of the replacement card amounted to age discrimination in the provision of goods and services.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the available information showed that younger persons entitled to other concession cards were subject to the same or similar requirements when replacement cards were needed, so the applicant had remote prospects of proving that he was treated less favourably than younger persons or that one reason for the treatment was his age; in those circumstances it was not fair and just to grant leave to proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ["Leave for the applicant's complaint of age discrimination to proceed is refused under s 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977."]