Ellson v PB Taxi Co. Pty Ltd (No 2)

In the case of Ellson v PB Taxi Co. Pty Ltd (No 2), Mr. Ellson, a legally blind individual with a guide dog, brought a complaint against PB Taxi Co. and Adelaide Independent Taxi Service. The complaint centred on an incident where Mr. Ellson was denied taxi service by a driver who refused to accept his guide dog, in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The complaint against Adelaide Independent Taxi Service was adjourned, whereas the Tribunal heard the complaint against PB Taxi Co. on 26 May 2008.

The primary legal issues that the court had to decide were whether PB Taxi Co. exercised all reasonable diligence to ensure compliance with the Act, and whether Mr. Fathi, the driver, was acting within the scope of his employment. Additionally, the court had to determine the appropriate compensation for Mr. Ellson’s distress and whether orders for preventing future contraventions were necessary.

The court found that PB Taxi Co. did not exercise all reasonable diligence in ensuring compliance with the Act, as the obligations under the Act were not sufficiently communicated to Mr. Fathi. Since Mr. Fathi was acting within the scope of his employment, PB Taxi Co. was held vicariously liable for his actions. The court rejected the argument that Mr. Ellson’s distress was partly caused by the hotel manager's behaviour, holding that the driver's refusal was the primary cause. The court awarded Mr. Ellson $1,000 for injury to feelings. The court also noted that PB Taxi Co. had undertaken to review its lease agreements and ensure future compliance with the Act.

No further orders were deemed necessary as PB Taxi Co. had already committed to reviewing its policies and ensuring that all future taxis would have guide dogs welcome stickers.