Bell v iiNET Ltd

[2017] QCAT 114

CITATION:

Bell v iiNET Ltd [2017] QCAT 114

PARTIES:

Andrew Bell
(Applicant)

v

iiNET Limited

(First Respondent)

Anthony O’Halloran
(Second Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

ADL114-15

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE:

25 July 2016

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Traves

DELIVERED ON:

27 January 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1.   The application is dismissed.

2.   Each party bear its own costs.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – whether discrimination on the basis of an attribute in connection with the supply of an internet service – direct discrimination – indirect discrimination - was term imposed – identification of the term - meaning of “does not or can not comply” – whether term not reasonable.

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 6, s 7, s 10, s 11, s 45, s 46, s 130, s 133

AB v Western Australia (2011) 281 ALR 694
Australia Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 137 ALR 653
Catholic Education Office v Clarke [2004] FCAFC 197
Chivers v State of Queensland [2014] 2 QdR 561
Christian Youth Camps Ltd (ACN 095 681 342) v Cobaw Community Health Services Ltd (ACN 136 366 722) (2014) 308 ALR 615
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
Krysiak v Public Transport Authority [2016] WASC 258
Lyons v Queensland [2016] HCA 38
Mandla v Dowell Lee [1983] 2 AC 548.
New South Wales v Amery (2006) CLR 174
Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92
Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461
Styles v Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1988) 16 ALD 234.
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

Mr Andrew Bell

FIRST RESPONDENT:

iiNet

SECOND RESPONDENT:

Anthony OHalloran

REPRESENTATIVES:

APPLICANT:

Ms K. McAuliffe-Lake, counsel instructed by Hopgood Ganim solicitors

RESPONDENTS:

Mr Tony Moffatt, in house counsel iiNet

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. This matter concerns a claim by Andrew Bell that he was discriminated against in four separate incidents by iiNet arising out of the cancellation by Mr Bell of the internet service supplied to him by iiNet. In short, the first two incidents related to a statement made by an employee of iiNet that the instruction to cancel the internet service had to occur by telephone, the third in iiNet’s debt department requiring Mr Bell contact them by telephone in relation to an outstanding invoice, and the fourth by iiNet in the fact of and manner of its referral of that debt to a debt recovery agency.  

2. Mr Bell made a complaint in relation to these incidents to the Discrimination Commissioner pursuant to s 134 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (the AD Act). In due course the complaint was referred to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) which, under s 174A of the AD Act, is empowered to hear and decide the complaint.

Statutory framework – Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)

1. The principle that an…