Sutherland v Tallong Park Association Incorporated [2006] NSWADT 163

Sutherland v Tallong Park Association Incorporated [2006] NSWADT 163

The Respondent imposed an unreasonable requirement for the Applicant to traverse 75 metres to access the pool facility, constituting unlawful indirect discrimination under s49M(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; neither the s57 exception nor the defence of unjustifiable hardship applied.

Parties
Applicant: Douglas Sutherland; Respondent: Tallong Park Association Incorporated
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Claim Provision of Goods and Services / Principal Matter Merits Decision; Directions for Further Relief Hearing
Outcome
Complaint of disability discrimination substantiated; directions for further evidence and submissions on relief issued.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Provision of Goods and Services, Indirect Discrimination, Reasonable Accommodation, Unjustifiable Hardship
Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Provision of Goods and Services Indirect Discrimination Reasonable Accommodation Unjustifiable Hardship

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Douglas Sutherland

Applicant

Tallong Park Association Incorporated

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Claim Provision of Goods and Services / Principal Matter Merits Decision; Directions for Further Relief Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the Respondent fall within the s57 exception of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?
  2. 2 Does denial of vehicular access constitute discrimination in the provision of goods and services under s49M of the Act?
  3. 3 Is the requirement to traverse 75 metres to access the pool indirect discrimination?

Ratio Decidendi

The Respondent imposed an unreasonable requirement for the Applicant to traverse 75 metres to access the pool facility, constituting unlawful indirect discrimination under s49M(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977; neither the s57 exception nor the defence of unjustifiable hardship applied.

Court Disposition

Complaint of disability discrimination substantiated; directions for further evidence and submissions on relief issued.

Orders

  • The complaint of disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services is substantiated.
  • The Applicant file and serve any evidence and submissions on the question of appropriate relief within 21 days of this decision.