Davis v Anglican Community Services

Link copied
Case Copied 12 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Davis v Anglican Community Services [2024] NSWCATAD 137
Hearing dates: 08 March 2024
Date of orders: 22 May 2024
Decision date: 22 May 2024
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: L Andelman, Senior Member
A Limbury, General Member
Decision:

The application is dismissed.

Catchwords:

HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – on ground of age – on the ground of disability – provision of accommodation – benefit associated with the accommodation.

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Cases Cited:

Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic [1989] HCA 56; 168 CLR 165

Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92

Waterhouse v Bell (1991) 25 NSWLR 99

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Theresa Davis (Applicant)
Anglican Community Services t/as Anglicare (Respondent)
Representation: Self-represented (Applicant)
Shohmelian Legal (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2022/00380043
Publication restriction: N/A

REASONS FOR DECISION

The complaint

  1. Ms Davis, the applicant has made a complaint that Anglican Community Services trading as Anglicare (“the respondent”) discriminated against her on the ground of age and or disability by failing to provide her with a car space in March 2022. The claim is made pursuant to ss 49N and 49ZYO of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (“the Act”). For the reasons that follow, Ms Davis’ application is dismissed.

Background

  1. Ms Davis entered into a Tenancy Agreement with the respondent on 11 November 2021 to reside in premises located in Liverpool in Sydney. The Tenancy Agreement did not provide for onsite car parking within the building complex.

  2. In March 2022, Ms Davis purchased a vehicle and commenced to park within the building complex without permission. She parked in other people’s car spaces, in the car washing bay and in other places in the building complex.

  3. Sometime after purchasing the vehicle, Ms Davis applied for a car space with the respondent. She attached a medical certificate and a disability car parking notice with the application. The respondent acknowledged her application in writing. The letter stated that there were no current car parking places and that she was placed on a waiting list.

  4. On numerous occasions in March, June and July 2022, the respondent issued Ms Davis with formal written notices advising her to refrain from parking her car inside the premises and that she was in breach of the Tenancy Agreement.

  5. On 10 May 2022, Ms Davis was issued with a Notice of Termination for breach of the Tenancy Agreement. On 31 August 2022, orders were issued by this Tribunal terminating the Tenancy Agreement with 28 day notice.

  6. On 30 September 2022, Ms Davis made an application to appeal against the Order and a stay of the Order was granted conditional on Ms Davis’ adherence to the Tenancy Agreement.

  7. Ms Davis continued to park her car in a non-allocated car parking space contrary to the Tenancy Agreement and the Tribunal set the stay aside. The appeal did not proceed.

The conduct of the final hearing

  1. On…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Davis v Anglican Community Services and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2024] NSWCATAD 137
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Davis brought an application against Anglican Community Services, alleging discrimination on the grounds of age and disability. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. Davis claimed that Anglican Community Services, in providing accommodation, had failed to provide her with a benefit associated with the accommodation, which was available to others who were not of the same age or disability status as Davis. The court had to decide whether the provision of accommodation by Anglican Community Services constituted a benefit associated with the accommodation that was available to others, and if so, whether there was discrimination on the grounds of age or disability.

The court examined the applicable anti-discrimination legislation and found that for a benefit to be associated with accommodation, it must be integral to the accommodation itself, not merely a peripheral service. The court held that the benefit in question was not integral to the accommodation provided by Anglican Community Services but rather a peripheral service. As such, there was no discrimination on the grounds of age or disability. The application was dismissed.

The court's reasoning focused on the nature of the benefit in question and its relationship to the accommodation provided. By determining that the benefit was not integral to the accommodation, the court concluded that Anglican Community Services had not failed to provide Davis with a benefit that was available to others. The application was dismissed, and Davis' claims of discrimination were rejected.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.