El Kassir v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] NSWCATAD 14

El Kassir v Woolworths Group Limited [2025] NSWCATAD 14

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not demonstrate evidence sufficient to establish that the Respondent's refusal to lift the banning notice, or refusal to further engage, was because of his disability or characteristics thereof. The decision was based on a documented history of aggressive conduct and shoplifting, not disability. There was also no evidence any requirement imposed by the Respondent (to interact non-aggressively) was unreasonable in all the circumstances, particularly given the Respondent's duty of care to staff. The complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance, so leave was refused.

Parties
Applicant: Hani El Kassir; Respondent: Woolworths Group Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 January 2025
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Complaint (administrative and Equal Opportunity Division) / Leave Application (s 96(1) Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw))
Outcome
Leave refused. Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Provision of Goods and Services, Leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined, Unfettered Discretion to Grant Leave, Unjustifiable Hardship, Duty of Care to Staff
Anti Discrimination Law Administrative Law Disability Discrimination Provision of Goods and Services Leave to Proceed After Complaint Declined Unfettered Discretion to Grant Leave Unjustifiable Hardship Duty of Care to Staff

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hani El Kassir

Applicant

Woolworths Group Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Disability Discrimination Complaint (administrative and Equal Opportunity Division) / Leave Application (s 96(1) Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw))

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicant's complaint of disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services should be allowed to proceed under s 96(1) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant has established direct or indirect disability discrimination under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant did not demonstrate evidence sufficient to establish that the Respondent's refusal to lift the banning notice, or refusal to further engage, was because of his disability or characteristics thereof. The decision was based on a documented history of aggressive conduct and shoplifting, not disability. There was also no evidence any requirement imposed by the Respondent (to interact non-aggressively) was unreasonable in all the circumstances, particularly given the Respondent's duty of care to staff. The complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance, so leave was refused.

Court Disposition

Leave refused. Application dismissed.

Orders

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