Dovedeen Pty Ltd v GK

Dovedeen Pty Ltd and its director and manager, the second applicant, appealed against a decision of the Appeal Tribunal of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed an appeal against a decision of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal which found that the first applicant had discriminated against the respondent, a self-employed sex worker, on the ground of her lawful sexual activity. The Tribunal found that the first applicant had refused the respondent accommodation in the future due to her lawful sexual activity. The appeal raised issues concerning the correct interpretation of the definition of ‘lawful sexual activity’ in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, the identification of an appropriate comparator under s 10(1) of the Act, and the appropriateness of a non-publication order in the Court of Appeal.

The court considered whether the Appeal Tribunal correctly interpreted the definition of ‘lawful sexual activity’ to include the carrying on of such activity at the time the conduct occurred. The court found that the Appeal Tribunal had erred in its interpretation of the definition and that the respondent suffered discrimination because of her status as a lawfully employed sex worker. The court also considered whether the appropriate comparator was a person without the attribute of a ‘lawful sex worker’ but who was seeking accommodation for the purpose of prostitution, or a person seeking accommodation for any lawful purpose, but not for prostitution or lawful sexual activity. The court held that the Appeal Tribunal had erred in its application of s 10(1) of the Act.

The court further considered the issue of a non-publication order in the Court of Appeal. The court held that a non-publication order should not be granted as the respondent had not established that exceptional circumstances existed to warrant such an order.

The court granted leave to appeal, allowed the appeal, set aside the decision and orders made by the Appeal Tribunal, and ordered that the appeal to the Appeal Tribunal be dismissed. The court also invited the parties to make submissions as to the costs of the proceedings.