Johnson v Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 29

Johnson v Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWADT 29

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Fordyce, acting as Free Spirit's agent, restricted Mr Johnson's free movement around the recreation park because he perceived him to be a teenager, and that an adult or person perceived to be an adult would have been treated more favourably. The Tribunal also found that the Johnson family's 27 January 2008 letter indicating a complaint would be made was the trigger for the respondent's 1 February 2008 cancellation of the confirmed booking, causing detriment to Mr Johnson. The complaints of age discrimination and victimisation were therefore substantiated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Age Discrimination and Victimisation Complaint in the Equal Opportunity Division Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Substantive Tribunal Proceedings After Refusal of Application to Dismiss Under Section 102
Outcome
The complaints of age discrimination and victimisation are substantiated.
Legal Topics
['age Discrimination in Provision of Goods and Services' 'victimisation' 'recreation Park Services' 'compensation for Hurt, Humiliation and Injury to Feelings']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['age Discrimination in Provision of Goods and Services' 'victimisation' 'recreation Park Services' 'compensation for Hurt, Humiliation and Injury to Feelings']

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

Age Discrimination and Victimisation Complaint in the Equal Opportunity Division Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Substantive Tribunal Proceedings After Refusal of Application to Dismiss Under Section 102

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd discriminated against Ryan Johnson on the ground of age by restricting his movement around the recreation park because he appeared to be a teenager.' "Whether cancellation of the Johnson family's booking for the following year was victimisation within the meaning of section 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." 'What compensation should be awarded for the substantiated complaints.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Fordyce, acting as Free Spirit's agent, restricted Mr Johnson's free movement around the recreation park because he perceived him to be a teenager, and that an adult or person perceived to be an adult would have been treated more favourably. The Tribunal also found that the Johnson family's 27 January 2008 letter indicating a complaint would be made was the trigger for the respondent's 1 February 2008 cancellation of the confirmed booking, causing detriment to Mr Johnson. The complaints of age discrimination and victimisation were therefore substantiated.

Court Disposition

The complaints of age discrimination and victimisation are substantiated.

Orders

  • ['The Respondent to pay the Applicant compensation in the amount of $7,500 within 28 days of this decision.']