Chatwin v Bodyline Spa and Sauna Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 69

Chatwin v Bodyline Spa and Sauna Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 69

Leave was granted because the applicant's evidence gave the complaint substance: the continuing exclusion from the premises, the alleged differential treatment compared with others who fell asleep, and conduct said to indicate that disability was the real or true reason could support a direct disability discrimination complaint. Although the respondent may have been wrongly named, there was evidence of an association between the previous and current owners and evidence that the current owner continued the earlier ban, and joinder could be sought if necessary. It was therefore fair and just to allow the applicant to proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2020
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Complaint Alleging Disability Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services / Application for Leave Under Section 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President Declined the Complaint Under S 92 and the Applicant Requested Referral Under S 93 a
Outcome
Leave granted.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed With Complaint' 'declined Complaint' 'continuing Contravention' 'joinder of Parties']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination' 'provision of Services' 'leave to Proceed With Complaint' 'declined Complaint' 'continuing Contravention' 'joinder of Parties']

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

Equal Opportunity Complaint Alleging Disability Discrimination in the Provision of Goods and Services / Application for Leave Under Section 96 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 After the President Declined the Complaint Under S 92 and the Applicant Requested Referral Under S 93 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted under section 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 for the applicant's complaint to proceed before the Tribunal." 'Whether the complaint had sufficient substance to warrant proceeding despite the President having declined it as lacking in substance.' 'Whether the alleged continuing ban from the premises could support a complaint of direct disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services.' 'Whether a possible misnaming of the respondent should prevent leave being granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted because the applicant's evidence gave the complaint substance: the continuing exclusion from the premises, the alleged differential treatment compared with others who fell asleep, and conduct said to indicate that disability was the real or true reason could support a direct disability discrimination complaint. Although the respondent may have been wrongly named, there was evidence of an association between the previous and current owners and evidence that the current owner continued the earlier ban, and joinder could be sought if necessary. It was therefore fair and just to allow the applicant to proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave granted.

Orders

  • ['Leave to proceed with the complaint under section 96 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is granted.']