Ryan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] FCAFC 36

Ryan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2022] FCAFC 36

The Court found that the relevant industrial award conferred a discretion—not a compulsion—upon the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's Leading Senior Constable appointment. Therefore, the Commissioner positively exercised that discretion, which can amount to direct or indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act if exercised on unlawful grounds. The primary judge erred in finding the Guidelines compelled the decision and in excluding the potential for discrimination.

Parties
Appellant: Kenneth John Ryan; First Respondent: Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force; Second Respondent: The State of New South Wales
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Single Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination in Employment, Revocation of Employment Positions, Interpretation of Industrial Awards, Indirect and Direct Discrimination, Application of Disability Discrimination Act to Police Officers
Human Rights Industrial Law Statutory Interpretation Disability Discrimination in Employment Revocation of Employment Positions Interpretation of Industrial Awards Indirect and Direct Discrimination Application of Disability Discrimination Act to Police Officers

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth John Ryan

Appellant

Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force

First Respondent

The State of New South Wales

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Single Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether revocation of appellant's position constituted direct or indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the primary judge erred in finding no decision to revoke appellant's position
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was an 'employee' within s 15(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the relevant industrial award conferred a discretion—not a compulsion—upon the Commissioner to revoke the appellant's Leading Senior Constable appointment. Therefore, the Commissioner positively exercised that discretion, which can amount to direct or indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act if exercised on unlawful grounds. The primary judge erred in finding the Guidelines compelled the decision and in excluding the potential for discrimination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The appeal be allowed.
  • The orders made on 16 February 2021 dismissing the appellant's application, and on 23 April 2021 that the appellant pay 80 percent of the respondents' costs be set aside.