Murtagh & Anor v Taylor [2004] NSWADT 271

Murtagh & Anor v Taylor [2004] NSWADT 271

Mr Barton discriminated against the applicants on the ground of age in relation to accommodation by refusing to take or progress their application because they had children. However, Ms Taylor did not expressly or impliedly authorise Mr Barton's conduct before or after it occurred, and in the circumstances she took all reasonable steps required to prevent contravention of the Act; therefore she was not vicariously liable.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Age Discrimination Accommodation / Principal Matter
Outcome
The applicants' claim that the respondent was vicariously liable for the age discrimination complained of was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['age Discrimination' 'refusal of Rental Accommodation to Families With Children' 'vicarious Liability of Principal for Agent' 'principal and Real Estate Agent Relationship' 'reasonable Steps Defence']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'accommodation' 'administrative Law'] ['age Discrimination' 'refusal of Rental Accommodation to Families With Children' 'vicarious Liability of Principal for Agent' 'principal and Real Estate Agent Relationship' 'reasonable Steps Defence']

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 Accommodation / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Barton's refusal to take or progress the applicants' application for accommodation because they had children amounted to age discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." "Whether Ms Taylor, either before or after Mr Barton's refusal to provide the accommodation, authorised him expressly or impliedly to make that decision." "If Ms Taylor authorised Mr Barton's conduct, whether she nevertheless took all reasonable steps to prevent Mr Barton from contravening the Act."]

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Barton discriminated against the applicants on the ground of age in relation to accommodation by refusing to take or progress their application because they had children. However, Ms Taylor did not expressly or impliedly authorise Mr Barton's conduct before or after it occurred, and in the circumstances she took all reasonable steps required to prevent contravention of the Act; therefore she was not vicariously liable.

Court Disposition

The applicants' claim that the respondent was vicariously liable for the age discrimination complained of was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicants claim of Respondent's vicarious liability for the age discrimination complained of is dismissed."]