Ellis v The Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd

In *Ellis v The Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd*, heard in the District Court of Western Australia before Judge Antoni Lucev, the applicant, Ms. Ellis, alleged disability discrimination against the respondent, The Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned Ms. Ellis's experience at a Hoyts cinema, specifically relating to seating arrangements and accessibility. Ms. Ellis sought to bring a claim under the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth). Hoyts applied to have the application summarily dismissed or the statement of claim struck out, arguing that Ms. Ellis had failed to adequately identify a disability and to allege discrimination arising from that disability, and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. Hoyts also sought to strike out certain material as scandalous, vague, embarrassing, or irrelevant.

The court was required to determine whether Ms. Ellis's statement of claim sufficiently pleaded a case of disability discrimination under the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth). This involved assessing whether the material before the court established, at a minimum, that Ms. Ellis had a disability and that the alleged discriminatory conduct by Hoyts was because of that disability. The court also had to consider whether the claim, as pleaded, was so lacking in merit that it had no reasonable prospect of success, justifying summary dismissal or a strike-out. Furthermore, the court needed to rule on whether any parts of the statement of claim were scandalous, vague, embarrassing, or irrelevant, warranting their removal.

Judge Lucev reasoned that for a claim of disability discrimination to proceed, the applicant must plead facts that establish the existence of a disability and that the impugned conduct was directly related to that disability. The court found that Ms. Ellis's pleading did not adequately particularise her alleged disability, nor did it clearly articulate how the seating arrangements or other alleged discriminatory actions were a consequence of that disability. Consequently, the court determined that the statement of claim, as it stood, did not disclose a cause of action with a reasonable prospect of success. The principles applied centred on the requirements for pleading a cause of action under anti-discrimination legislation and the court's power to strike out proceedings that are vexatious, an abuse of process, or have no reasonable prospect of success.

The court ordered that the statement of claim be struck out. However, Ms. Ellis was granted leave to file and serve an amended statement of claim within a specified period, provided it adequately addressed the deficiencies identified by the court.