Mercieca v IHG Hotels Management Group (Australia) Pty Ltd & Salter Brothers (Coogee Beach) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAD 63

Mercieca v IHG Hotels Management Group (Australia) Pty Ltd & Salter Brothers (Coogee Beach) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCATAD 63

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the applicant's assertion that his reservation was cancelled and he was blacklisted due to his race or ethnicity. The respondents' explanation – that the applicant was refused service due to his aggressive conduct – was more likely and was supported by business records and correspondence. As no causal link between race and the adverse treatment was established, the complaint lacked substance and leave to proceed was refused under s 96(1) of the Act.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Complaint Anti Discrimination (administrative) / Leave to Proceed (preliminary Application)
Outcome
Leave to proceed refused
Legal Topics
['discrimination on the Grounds of Race' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed – Substance of Complaint']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['discrimination on the Grounds of Race' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed – Substance of Complaint']

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 Anti Discrimination (administrative) / Leave to Proceed (preliminary Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was discriminated against on the ground of race in the provision of goods and services' 'Whether leave should be granted for the complaint to proceed under s 96(1) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)' 'Whether the complaint is lacking in substance']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the evidence did not support the applicant's assertion that his reservation was cancelled and he was blacklisted due to his race or ethnicity. The respondents' explanation – that the applicant was refused service due to his aggressive conduct – was more likely and was supported by business records and correspondence. As no causal link between race and the adverse treatment was established, the complaint lacked substance and leave to proceed was refused under s 96(1) of the Act.

Court Disposition

Leave to proceed refused

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the complaint against the Respondents to proceed.']