Brala v Cabramatta Golf Club Limited [2020] NSWCATAD 217

Brala v Cabramatta Golf Club Limited [2020] NSWCATAD 217

Leave was refused because, taking Mr Brala's allegations at their highest, the complaint was not reasonably arguable. Although the termination of membership was capable of falling within s 49O(2)(b), and the alleged failure to deal with complaints was capable of falling within s 49O(2)(c) or s 49M, the available material did not support an arguable inference that Mr Brala was treated less favourably or that one reason for the Club's conduct was his disability or perceived disability. The Club had accepted and investigated at least one complaint, the remaining complaint material did not show a disability-related basis for inaction, and no requirement or condition was identified for an...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 September 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for a Declined Anti Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw)
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'registered Clubs' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'direct Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination']
['human Rights' 'equal Opportunity' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'registered Clubs' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined as Lacking in Substance' 'direct Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination']

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 Declined Anti Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the complaint to proceed after the President declined it as lacking in substance.' "Whether the Club's termination of Mr Brala's membership was capable of constituting disability discrimination under s 49O(2)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)." "Whether the Board's alleged failure to deal with Mr Brala's complaints of bullying and harassment was capable of constituting disability discrimination under s 49O(2)(c) or s 49M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)." 'Whether the complaint was reasonably arguable as direct discrimination under s 49B(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' 'Whether the complaint was reasonably arguable as indirect discrimination under s 49B(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, taking Mr Brala's allegations at their highest, the complaint was not reasonably arguable. Although the termination of membership was capable of falling within s 49O(2)(b), and the alleged failure to deal with complaints was capable of falling within s 49O(2)(c) or s 49M, the available material did not support an arguable inference that Mr Brala was treated less favourably or that one reason for the Club's conduct was his disability or perceived disability. The Club had accepted and investigated at least one complaint, the remaining complaint material did not show a disability-related basis for inaction, and no requirement or condition was identified for an...

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the complaint to proceed is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).']