Johnson v Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 31

Johnson v Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd [2010] NSWADT 31

Taking the applicant's case at its highest, there was evidence capable of supporting a finding that the respondent provided services relating to recreation to persons staying at the Holiday Park on payment of a tariff, including the applicant as a child included in the family reservation. A term on which those services were provided could include movement through the Holiday Park after 9pm. It was not essential that the applicant personally have a contractual relationship with the respondent, and he had standing under s.87A. The victimisation complaint was also not misconceived or lacking in substance because there was evidence the applicant had attended the Holiday Park with his family...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Age Discrimination in the Provision of Goods or Services and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Application by the Respondent for Dismissal Under S.102
Outcome
The application for dismissal of the complaints is refused.
Legal Topics
['age Discrimination' 'provision of Goods or Services' 'services Relating to Recreation' 'victimisation' 'standing to Bring Complaint' 'summary Dismissal']
['equal Opportunity' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['age Discrimination' 'provision of Goods or Services' 'services Relating to Recreation' 'victimisation' 'standing to Bring Complaint' 'summary Dismissal']

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

Complaint of Age Discrimination in the Provision of Goods or Services and Victimisation Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Application by the Respondent for Dismissal Under S.102

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the complaint should be dismissed under s.102 as misconceived, lacking in substance, or for want of standing.' 'Whether the respondent provided goods or services to the applicant within s.49ZYN despite the absence of a direct contractual relationship.' 'Whether the applicant identified terms on which services were provided, namely restrictions on movement through the Holiday Park after 9pm without an adult.' 'Whether the applicant had standing under s.87A to bring the discrimination complaint.' "Whether the victimisation complaint based on cancellation of the applicant's parents' booking was misconceived or lacking in substance."]

Ratio Decidendi

Taking the applicant's case at its highest, there was evidence capable of supporting a finding that the respondent provided services relating to recreation to persons staying at the Holiday Park on payment of a tariff, including the applicant as a child included in the family reservation. A term on which those services were provided could include movement through the Holiday Park after 9pm. It was not essential that the applicant personally have a contractual relationship with the respondent, and he had standing under s.87A. The victimisation complaint was also not misconceived or lacking in substance because there was evidence the applicant had attended the Holiday Park with his family...

Court Disposition

The application for dismissal of the complaints is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for dismissal is refused']