FXQ v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2023] NSWCATAD 184

FXQ v Canterbury Bankstown Council [2023] NSWCATAD 184

Taking the Applicant's evidence at its highest, the Tribunal found that the relevant services were self-service library technology for scanning, copying and printing and assistance to access that technology. The Applicant was ultimately provided access to the services and assistance, so there was no refusal of...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2023
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Complaint in the Provision of Goods and Services / Application for Leave Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President Declined the Complaint Under S 92(1)(a)(i)
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'complaint Lacking in Substance']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed' 'complaint Lacking in Substance']

Source-derived case record

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

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Complaint in the Provision of Goods and Services / Application for Leave Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President Declined the Complaint Under S 92(1)(a)(i)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 for the complaint to proceed before the Tribunal.' "Whether, taking the Applicant's evidence at its highest, the Respondent's alleged conduct could constitute unlawful disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services under s 49M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." 'Whether the Applicant was refused services or provided services on less favourable terms because of disability.' 'Whether it was fair and just in the circumstances to grant leave.']

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the Applicant's evidence at its highest, the Tribunal found that the relevant services were self-service library technology for scanning, copying and printing and assistance to access that technology. The Applicant was ultimately provided access to the services and assistance, so there was no refusal of services under s 49M(1)(a). The evidence did not establish that services were provided on less favourable terms because of disability, nor facts from which a reasonable and logical inference of causation could be drawn. The complained-of conduct concerned the manner of interaction by a staff member, which is not covered by s 49M. The complaint was lacking in substance and it was not...

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.']