Horwood -V- Ryde-Hunters Hill Community Housing Co-Operative [1996] NSWEOT

Horwood -V- Ryde-Hunters Hill Community Housing Co-Operative [1996] NSWEOT

The complainant did not establish that he was discriminated against on the ground of disability or race. No submissions were addressed on disability and there was no evidence of disability discrimination. On race, there was no evidence warranting a conclusion that the eviction occurred because the complainant was a white Australian; the Tribunal was satisfied that no race discrimination occurred and that Mr A's later occupation of the premises was fortuitous. Therefore no contravention of section 19 or section 20 of the Anti-Discrimination Act was made out.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Complaint Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal Pursuant to Section 91 of the Anti Discrimination Act Alleging Race and Disability Discrimination in Accommodation and Goods and Services / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'disability Discrimination' 'community Housing Tenancy' 'eviction' 'burden of Establishing Discrimination on a Protected Ground']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'accommodation' 'goods and Services'] ['race Discrimination' 'disability Discrimination' 'community Housing Tenancy' 'eviction' 'burden of Establishing Discrimination on a Protected Ground']

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 Referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal Pursuant to Section 91 of the Anti Discrimination Act Alleging Race and Disability Discrimination in Accommodation and Goods and Services / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the complainant was discriminated against on the ground of disability.' 'Whether the complainant was discriminated against on the ground of race as a white Australian in relation to accommodation or goods and services.' "Whether the respondent procured the complainant's eviction so that a person assumed to be of Indian or Afghanistan descent could occupy the premises."]

Ratio Decidendi

The complainant did not establish that he was discriminated against on the ground of disability or race. No submissions were addressed on disability and there was no evidence of disability discrimination. On race, there was no evidence warranting a conclusion that the eviction occurred because the complainant was a white Australian; the Tribunal was satisfied that no race discrimination occurred and that Mr A's later occupation of the premises was fortuitous. Therefore no contravention of section 19 or section 20 of the Anti-Discrimination Act was made out.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The complaint is dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.' 'Any reference to the address of either Miss K or Mr A is suppressed in any publication of this judgment.' 'References to the names of Miss K and Mr A are to be as Miss K and Mr A.']