Commonwealth of Australia v The Honourable W J Carter QC & Anor [1996] FCA 940
The discharge of the second respondent solely on the basis of HIV-positive status, without evidence that the disability rendered him unable to perform the inherent requirements of military service as a soldier, constituted unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Occupational health policies imposing a blanket bar on HIV-positive enlistment are not inherent requirements for the purposes of the Act.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 31 October 1996
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- Application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['disability Discrimination in Employment' 'inherent Requirements of Employment' 'defence Force Employment' 'judicial Review of Administrative Decisions']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review / Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the discharge of an HIV-positive enlistee from the ADF constitutes unlawful discrimination under Part 2 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)' "Whether an HIV-positive status renders an enlisted soldier unable to carry out the 'inherent requirements' of military employment under s 15(4) of the Act" 'Whether employer-imposed occupational health and safety requirements are inherent requirements for the purposes of the Act']
Ratio Decidendi
The discharge of the second respondent solely on the basis of HIV-positive status, without evidence that the disability rendered him unable to perform the inherent requirements of military service as a soldier, constituted unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Occupational health policies imposing a blanket bar on HIV-positive enlistment are not inherent requirements for the purposes of the Act.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the first and second respondents' costs of and incidental to the application, including reserved costs, to be taxed if not agreed."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment