Macras v Victoria Police [2019] FCA 1848

Macras v Victoria Police [2019] FCA 1848

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's proposed grounds was sufficiently arguable or had reasonable prospects of success. Section 5(2) was not raised before the primary judge; the primary judge correctly applied s 5(1) and Purvis; there was no arguable error in the rejection of the indirect discrimination claim under s 6; the s 39 service argument relied on appeal had not been articulated below; and the primary judge correctly found no sufficient assertion of rights or causation for victimisation under s 42.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Summarily Dismissing the Proceeding
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['direct Disability Discrimination' 'indirect Disability Discrimination' 'disability Aid' 'harassment in Relation to Goods and Services' 'victimisation' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal']
['human Rights' 'disability Discrimination' 'appellate Procedure'] ['direct Disability Discrimination' 'indirect Disability Discrimination' 'disability Aid' 'harassment in Relation to Goods and Services' 'victimisation' 'summary Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal']

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 for Leave to Appeal From the Federal Circuit Court of Australia / Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Orders Summarily Dismissing the Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the Federal Circuit Court's summary dismissal of the applicant's Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) claims against Victoria Police." 'Whether the primary judge erred by not addressing s 5(2) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the primary judge applied the correct test for direct discrimination under ss 5(1) and 8 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the primary judge misunderstood the causal requirements for indirect discrimination under s 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the interception by police involved provision of a service for the purposes of s 39 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' 'Whether the applicant\'s statement of "human rights" constituted a reasonable assertion of rights causing detriment for the purposes of s 42 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the applicant's proposed grounds was sufficiently arguable or had reasonable prospects of success. Section 5(2) was not raised before the primary judge; the primary judge correctly applied s 5(1) and Purvis; there was no arguable error in the rejection of the indirect discrimination claim under s 6; the s 39 service argument relied on appeal had not been articulated below; and the primary judge correctly found no sufficient assertion of rights or causation for victimisation under s 42.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be dismissed.' 'The applicant pay the costs of the respondent, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement.']