Mewett v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 160

Mewett v Michael Roberts Strata Management Services Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 160

The complaint failed because, although the applicant had a disability and the respondent provided services, the evidence did not establish that the respondent refused to communicate with him by telephone or required him to communicate only in writing. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant spoke by...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Disability Discrimination Complaint in the Provision of Services / Principal Judgment After Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Under S 93 C(b) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw), Including Determination of the Respondent's Costs Application
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; respondent's costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['disability Discrimination in Provision of Services' 'direct Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination' 'services by Strata Managing Agent' 'tribunal Costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['disability Discrimination in Provision of Services' 'direct Discrimination' 'indirect Discrimination' 'services by Strata Managing Agent' 'tribunal Costs' 'special Circumstances for Costs']

Source-derived case record

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

Disability Discrimination Complaint in the Provision of Services / Principal Judgment After Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Under S 93 C(b) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw), Including Determination of the Respondent's Costs Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had a disability within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' 'Whether the respondent was a person providing services within s 49M(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).' 'Whether the respondent refused to communicate with the applicant by telephone.' "Whether any less favourable treatment was on the ground of the applicant's disability." 'Whether the respondent required the applicant to comply with a requirement or condition that he communicate only in writing.' 'Whether special circumstances existed warranting an order for costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint failed because, although the applicant had a disability and the respondent provided services, the evidence did not establish that the respondent refused to communicate with him by telephone or required him to communicate only in writing. The Tribunal accepted evidence that the applicant spoke by telephone with Ms Saunders on three occasions and with Mr McGrath once at length. The applicant also failed to prove that the respondent's employees knew of his disability, so any alleged less favourable treatment was not shown to be on the ground of disability. The costs application failed because the Tribunal was not satisfied that special circumstances warranted an award of costs.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; respondent's costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The complaint is dismissed.' "The respondent's costs application is dismissed."]