DP v Com Cen Authy, JLM v D-g NSW Dept of Com Servs

The High Court of Australia considered appeals from the Supreme Court of New South Wales in two related matters, *DP v Com Cen Authy* and *JLM v D-g NSW Dept of Com Servs*. The central dispute concerned the interpretation and application of the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth) (DDA) in the context of alleged unlawful discrimination against individuals with disabilities by government agencies. The appeals arose from decisions of the Supreme Court which had affirmed findings of unlawful discrimination made by the Australian Human Rights Commission and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the respondents had unlawfully discriminated against the appellants by reason of their disabilities, and whether certain actions or omissions by the respondents constituted a failure to make reasonable adjustments as required by the DDA. Specifically, the Court had to determine the scope of the duty to make reasonable adjustments and the circumstances under which a failure to do so would amount to unlawful discrimination. The Court also considered the appropriate approach to assessing whether a particular adjustment was "reasonable" in the context of the DDA.

The High Court, in a joint judgment, clarified that the DDA imposes a positive obligation on service providers to make reasonable adjustments to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. The Court emphasised that the assessment of reasonableness involves a multi-factorial approach, considering factors such as the nature of the disability, the effectiveness of the proposed adjustment, the cost and benefit of the adjustment, and the resources available to the service provider. The Court found that the respondents had failed to make reasonable adjustments in both cases, thereby engaging in unlawful discrimination.

The High Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the orders of the Supreme Court of New South Wales and remitting the matters to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for further consideration of appropriate remedies.