King v John McMahon Stock & Realty Pty Ltd [2005] NSWADT 260

King v John McMahon Stock & Realty Pty Ltd [2005] NSWADT 260

Ms King was treated less favourably than non-Aboriginal comparators when her inquiry for accommodation on 15 February 2002 was dismissed despite similar inquiries from non-Aboriginal persons being given lists of available rentals. The less favourable treatment was, on the balance of probabilities, because of her race; thus, the respondent breached s.20(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. No breach was established under s.20(1)(a) as there was insufficient comparator evidence regarding the refusal of a formal application.

Parties
Applicant: Tina King; Respondent: John McMahon Stock & Realty Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 November 2005
Procedural Posture
Race Discrimination Accommodation / Merits/principal Matter
Outcome
Partial success for applicant
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Accommodation, Burden of Proof, Damages, Comparator Analysis
Anti Discrimination Law Equal Opportunity Law Race Discrimination Accommodation Burden of Proof Damages Comparator Analysis

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tina King

Applicant

John McMahon Stock & Realty Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Race Discrimination Accommodation / Merits/principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent refused or deferred the applicant's accommodation application on the grounds of race in breach of s.20(1)(a) and/or s.20(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether less favourable treatment was due to the applicant's race

Ratio Decidendi

Ms King was treated less favourably than non-Aboriginal comparators when her inquiry for accommodation on 15 February 2002 was dismissed despite similar inquiries from non-Aboriginal persons being given lists of available rentals. The less favourable treatment was, on the balance of probabilities, because of her race; thus, the respondent breached s.20(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. No breach was established under s.20(1)(a) as there was insufficient comparator evidence regarding the refusal of a formal application.

Court Disposition

Partial success for applicant

Orders

  • The Applicant's claim that the respondent breached s. 20(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 is dismissed.
  • The Respondent did breach s.20(1)(c) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 as per the Applicant's complaint.