Wombey v Apple Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAD 179

Wombey v Apple Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAD 179

Leave was refused because, even taking the Applicant's evidence at its highest, the complaint lacked substance. The clinical records did not establish a formal or informal diagnosis of anxiety or panic disorder, nor any causal connection between the alleged disability and Apple's conduct. The Applicant was not treated less favourably than a person without the alleged disability, and there was no evidence that on 31 December 2020 she was exempt from wearing a mask or that any inability to wear a mask was connected to anxiety or panic disorder. In any event, requiring customers and staff to wear masks was reasonable in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly where Apple had...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Complaint Declined by the President's Delegate Under S 92(1)(a)(vi) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw); Applicant Requested Referral to the Tribunal Under S 93 A(1), Requiring Leave Under S 96(1)
Outcome
Leave refused
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'covid 19 Face Mask Requirement' 'leave for Complaint to Proceed' 'whether Complaint Lacking in Substance' 'appropriate Remedy or Redress']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'human Rights and Equal Opportunity' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'covid 19 Face Mask Requirement' 'leave for Complaint to Proceed' 'whether Complaint Lacking in Substance' 'appropriate Remedy or Redress']

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

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave for Discrimination Complaint to Proceed / Complaint Declined by the President's Delegate Under S 92(1)(a)(vi) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw); Applicant Requested Referral to the Tribunal Under S 93 A(1), Requiring Leave Under S 96(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the complaint to proceed' "Whether the Applicant's complaint of disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services lacked substance" 'Whether the Respondent directly or indirectly discriminated against the Applicant by requiring masks in its retail store' 'Whether the face mask requirement was reasonable in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic' 'Whether the Respondent had taken appropriate steps to remedy or redress the conduct complained of']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, even taking the Applicant's evidence at its highest, the complaint lacked substance. The clinical records did not establish a formal or informal diagnosis of anxiety or panic disorder, nor any causal connection between the alleged disability and Apple's conduct. The Applicant was not treated less favourably than a person without the alleged disability, and there was no evidence that on 31 December 2020 she was exempt from wearing a mask or that any inability to wear a mask was connected to anxiety or panic disorder. In any event, requiring customers and staff to wear masks was reasonable in the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly where Apple had...

Court Disposition

Leave refused

Orders

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