Applicant DT 6/2025 v Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services (Discrimination)
Case
•
[2025] ACAT 66
•16 September 2025
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Applicant DT 6/2025 v Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services (Discrimination) [2025] ACAT 66
[2025] ACAT 66
16 September 2025
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, DT 6/2025, lodged a complaint against the Director-General, Transport Canberra and City Services, alleging discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act. The applicant claimed she was indirectly discriminated against when required to navigate uneven paving to access Kippax Fair shopping centre. The respondent argued it had provided disability-accessible paths and had not discriminated against the applicant. The matter was heard by the Tribunal.
The central legal issues were whether the respondent imposed a condition on the applicant to navigate uneven paving, thereby indirectly discriminating against her, and whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the applicant’s disability. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had provided evidence of her fall being caused by an uneven paver.
The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not required the applicant to navigate uneven paving to access the shopping centre, and therefore no indirect discrimination had occurred. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondent had not discriminated against the applicant by failing to make a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided evidence that her fall was caused by an uneven paver, as the CCTV footage and photographs indicated she fell before reaching the alleged uneven paver. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent’s efforts to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act by providing accessible paths and addressing the uneven paver complaint.
ORDERS:
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The application is dismissed.
The central legal issues were whether the respondent imposed a condition on the applicant to navigate uneven paving, thereby indirectly discriminating against her, and whether the respondent failed to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the applicant’s disability. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the applicant had provided evidence of her fall being caused by an uneven paver.
The Tribunal concluded that the respondent had not required the applicant to navigate uneven paving to access the shopping centre, and therefore no indirect discrimination had occurred. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the respondent had not discriminated against the applicant by failing to make a reasonable adjustment. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not provided evidence that her fall was caused by an uneven paver, as the CCTV footage and photographs indicated she fell before reaching the alleged uneven paver. The Tribunal acknowledged the respondent’s efforts to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act by providing accessible paths and addressing the uneven paver complaint.
ORDERS:
The Tribunal orders that:
1. The application is dismissed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Human Rights Law
Legal Concepts
-
Discrimination
-
Reasonable Adjustment
-
Unjust Enrichment
-
Disability Discrimination Act
-
Unconscionable Conduct
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
15
Statutory Material Cited
0
Travers v New South Wales
[2001] FMCA 18
Hunter v State of Queensland
[2015] QCAT 179