EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 28

EIX20 v State of Western Australia (No 2) [2025] FCA 28

Leave to amend is refused for the education services direct discrimination claim under the DDA as pleaded due to insufficient identification of reasonable adjustments and failure to plead a causal nexus as required by Sklavos. Leave is granted (with possible need for further particularisation) for the direct discrimination claim in the provision of 'services,' and for the RDA claims regarding exclusion from a NAIDOC event, as the allegations are sufficiently arguable and not bound to fail at this stage.

Parties
Applicant: EIX20; Respondent: State of Western Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application on Pleadings / Ruling on Application for Leave to Replead and on Strike Out/summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Leave to amend granted in part; leave refused in part; strike out application dismissed; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination Under DDA, Racial Discrimination Under RDA, Requirement for Sufficient Pleadings, Meaning of Services in Detention, Causation in Discrimination Claims
Practice and Procedure Human Rights Discrimination Law Disability Discrimination Under DDA Racial Discrimination Under RDA Requirement for Sufficient Pleadings Meaning of Services in Detention Causation in Discrimination Claims

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 3 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

EIX20

Applicant

State of Western Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application on Pleadings / Ruling on Application for Leave to Replead and on Strike Out/summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's proposed further amended statement of claim pleads direct and indirect discrimination sufficiently under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the reasonable adjustments alleged are sufficiently pleaded to constitute 'adjustments' under the DDA
  3. 3 Whether there is a required causal nexus under s 5(2) DDA between the applicant's disability and alleged less favourable treatment

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to amend is refused for the education services direct discrimination claim under the DDA as pleaded due to insufficient identification of reasonable adjustments and failure to plead a causal nexus as required by Sklavos. Leave is granted (with possible need for further particularisation) for the direct discrimination claim in the provision of 'services,' and for the RDA claims regarding exclusion from a NAIDOC event, as the allegations are sufficiently arguable and not bound to fail at this stage.

Court Disposition

Leave to amend granted in part; leave refused in part; strike out application dismissed; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Parties to provide within 14 days a joint minute of proposed orders recording parts of the applicant's 3FASOC for which leave is granted and refused.
  • The respondent's strike out and summary judgment application is otherwise dismissed.