Reurich v Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Limited [2018] FCA 682

Reurich v Acciona Infrastructure Australia Pty Limited [2018] FCA 682

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding because he did not disclose any disability or need for an assistance animal before or at the interview, did not provide documentation that Boofhead was an assistance animal, was not offered the role, and formed his belief that he would receive the job only from his own impression of the interview. Since the respondents were unaware of any disability, need for an assistance dog, or that Boofhead was an assistance dog at the relevant time, a claim that they discriminated against him on the ground of disability in determining who should be offered employment could not be made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) Alleging Unlawful Disability Discrimination in Employment / Respondents' Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Strike Out of the Originating Application
Outcome
Proceeding summarily dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'disability Discrimination' 'assistance Animal' 'employment Interview' 'reasonable Prospects of Success']
['practice and Procedure' 'discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'human Rights'] ['summary Dismissal' 'strike Out of Pleading' 'disability Discrimination' 'assistance Animal' 'employment Interview' 'reasonable Prospects of Success']

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 Under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) Alleging Unlawful Disability Discrimination in Employment / Respondents' Interlocutory Application for Summary Judgment Or, in the Alternative, Strike Out of the Originating Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting his disability discrimination proceeding.' 'Whether the respondents discriminated against the applicant on the ground of disability in determining who should be offered employment when they were not aware of any disability or need for an assistance animal at the relevant time.' 'Whether the originating application should alternatively be struck out for failing to disclose material facts or a reasonable cause of action.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant had no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the proceeding because he did not disclose any disability or need for an assistance animal before or at the interview, did not provide documentation that Boofhead was an assistance animal, was not offered the role, and formed his belief that he would receive the job only from his own impression of the interview. Since the respondents were unaware of any disability, need for an assistance dog, or that Boofhead was an assistance dog at the relevant time, a claim that they discriminated against him on the ground of disability in determining who should be offered employment could not be made out.

Court Disposition

Proceeding summarily dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to s 31A(2) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and r 26.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) the proceeding be summarily dismissed.' "There be no order as to costs of the proceeding, including in relation to the first and second respondents' interlocutory application filed on 5 February...