Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 130

Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 130

Virgin Australia's refusal to allow Mr Mulligan's assistance dog to accompany him in the cabin constituted direct discrimination under s 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), as Willow met the statutory definition of an assistance animal and the airline failed to justify its refusal under statutory exemptions, prescribed laws, or on the basis of unjustifiable hardship. The relevant CASA instruments did not apply to Mr Mulligan's circumstances, and the evidence established his disability and Willow's training to the required standard, making the conduct unlawful.

Parties
Appellant: David Mulligan; Respondent: Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd; Intervener: Australian Human Rights Commission
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Primary orders set aside. Orders made against appellant (costs and dismissal) below are reversed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Assistance Animals, Services Discrimination, Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act, Statutory Exemptions, Unjustifiable Hardship, Carriage of Assistance Animals on Aircraft
Human Rights Law Anti Discrimination Law Aviation Law Disability Discrimination Assistance Animals Services Discrimination Interpretation of Disability Discrimination Act Statutory Exemptions +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 33 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Mulligan

Appellant

Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd

Respondent

Australian Human Rights Commission

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the appellant under ss 24 and 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) by refusing to allow the appellant's assistance dog to accompany him in the aircraft cabin
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge misapplied reg 256A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) and its interaction with the Disability Discrimination Act
  3. 3 Whether the instruments made under reg 256A were 'prescribed laws' under s 47(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act

Ratio Decidendi

Virgin Australia's refusal to allow Mr Mulligan's assistance dog to accompany him in the cabin constituted direct discrimination under s 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), as Willow met the statutory definition of an assistance animal and the airline failed to justify its refusal under statutory exemptions, prescribed laws, or on the basis of unjustifiable hardship. The relevant CASA instruments did not apply to Mr Mulligan's circumstances, and the evidence established his disability and Willow's training to the required standard, making the conduct unlawful.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Primary orders set aside. Orders made against appellant (costs and dismissal) below are reversed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed.
  • The amended notice of contention and amended cross-appeal are dismissed.