Robinson v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] NSWCATAD 8

Robinson v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] NSWCATAD 8

Taking the applicant's evidence at its highest, there was no differential treatment in the terms on which services were provided; staff conduct, though impolite, did not constitute less favourable terms or refusal of service under s 49M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The complaint did not rise to the level of arguable unlawful disability discrimination, and therefore it is not fair or just to grant leave to proceed.

Parties
Applicant: Fiona Robinson; Respondent: Woolworths Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Proceed With Disability Discrimination Complaint / Leave Hearing Decision
Outcome
Leave refused for complaint to proceed under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Equal Opportunity, Provision of Goods and Services, Procedural Fairness in Discrimination Complaints, Leave to Proceed, Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw)
Human Rights Discrimination Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Equal Opportunity Provision of Goods and Services Procedural Fairness in Discrimination Complaints Leave to Proceed +1 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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fiona Robinson

Applicant

Woolworths Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Proceed With Disability Discrimination Complaint / Leave Hearing Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant and her daughter experienced unlawful disability discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) in the provision of goods and services
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the respondent's staff amounted to direct or indirect discrimination
  3. 3 Whether the terms on which services were provided to the applicant were less favourable by reason of her daughter's disability

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the applicant's evidence at its highest, there was no differential treatment in the terms on which services were provided; staff conduct, though impolite, did not constitute less favourable terms or refusal of service under s 49M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The complaint did not rise to the level of arguable unlawful disability discrimination, and therefore it is not fair or just to grant leave to proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave refused for complaint to proceed under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Orders

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