Applicant 202024 v The Australian Capital Territory (represented by Access Canberra)
Case
•
[2021] ACAT 14
•26 February 2021
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Applicant 202024 v The Australian Capital Territory (Represented By Access Canberra) (Discrimination) [2021] ACAT 14
[2021] ACAT 14
26 February 2021
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant alleged that the respondent, Access Canberra, had discriminated against them on the basis of their race by refusing to register their vehicles. The application was brought under section 53A of the Human Rights Commission Act 2005, which allows the Australian Human Rights Commission to refer certain discrimination matters to the Australian Human Rights Commission Tribunal. The applicant sought a declaration of discrimination, an order for the respondent to provide a reasonable adjustment, and compensation for the alleged discrimination. The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the respondent's refusal to register the applicant's vehicles constituted discrimination on the basis of race. The Tribunal considered whether the registration of vehicles constituted a good, service, or facility under the Anti-Discrimination Act. It also considered whether the evidence demonstrated that the unfavourable treatment of the applicant resulted from their protected attribute, namely their race.
The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed that the applicant experienced unfavourable treatment, it did not establish that this treatment was due to their race. The Tribunal noted that the evidence was subjective and based on juxtaposed experiences, and that there was no evidence that the unfavourable treatment was due to the applicant's protected attribute. The Tribunal held that the unfavourable treatment did not amount to discrimination. The Tribunal found that the application should be dismissed, and made an order to that effect.
The Tribunal found that while the evidence showed that the applicant experienced unfavourable treatment, it did not establish that this treatment was due to their race. The Tribunal noted that the evidence was subjective and based on juxtaposed experiences, and that there was no evidence that the unfavourable treatment was due to the applicant's protected attribute. The Tribunal held that the unfavourable treatment did not amount to discrimination. The Tribunal found that the application should be dismissed, and made an order to that effect.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Human Rights Law
Legal Concepts
-
Discrimination
-
Direct Discrimination
-
Unconscionable Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Dao v University of Canberra (Discrimination) [2025] ACAT 72
Cases Citing This Decision
12
Dao v University of Canberra (Discrimination)
[2025] ACAT 72
Johnson v Jahanpanah (Appeal)
[2024] ACAT 6
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
6
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Briginshaw v Briginshaw
[1938] HCA 34
Cooley v Australian National University
[2007] ACTDT 2