GPJ v GZH

[2025] NSWCATAD 118

Civil and Administrative Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

GPJ v GZH [2025] NSWCATAD 118

Hearing dates:

1 and 2 May 2025

Date of orders:

29 May 2025

Decision date:

29 May 2025

Jurisdiction:

Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Smith, Senior Member
J Goodman-Delahunty, General Member

Decision:

(1)   Pursuant to s 108(1)(a) of the ADA, the Tribunal dismisses the whole of the complaint.

Catchwords:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – disability discrimination – indirect and direct discrimination – provision of goods and services – victimisation

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW)

Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Bonella & Ors v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT

Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5

Lonie v LiveBetter Services Limited [2023] NSWCATAD 60

Nicholls & Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (he

No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20

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

Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44

Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512

Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1992) 173 CLR 349

Texts Cited:

Dr Jane Theodore, ‘Researchers call for children to wear helmets around horses’ (2017), Faculty of Medicine – University of Queensland

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

GPJ (First Applicant)
GPK (Second Applicant)
GZH (Respondent)

Representation:

Agent (First Applicant and Second Applicant)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2024/00317954

Publication restriction:

The publication of the names of the First Applicant, Second Applicant, Respondent and all witnesses is prohibited pursuant to s 64(1)(a) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW).

REASONS fOR DECISION

Decision

1. GPK is the parent of GPJ, a child with a diagnosed neurological condition which requires the use of a motorised wheelchair. GPK alleges that GZH, a Horse Association, has unlawfully discriminated against GPJ, on the grounds of disability, by requiring that GPJ wear a helmet while leading a horse during a horse show. GPK also alleges that GPK has been victimised by GZH, after making this complaint of disability discrimination against GZH.

2. The Tribunal has dismissed the complaint in whole because the Tribunal has not substantiated that GZH unlawfully discriminated against GPK on the grounds of disability in the provision of goods and services and has not substantiated that GPK was victimised by GZH as a result of making the complaint.

3. The reasons for this decision are set out below with a section addressed directly to GPJ who was present at the hearing.

Relevant law

4. Given the various references in the evidence to terminology and provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (ADA), before turning to the evidence and the Tribunal’s consideration, the relevant law is explained below.

Disability discrimination

5. As recognised by the High Court and this Tribunal, disability discrimination differs from other forms of discrimination such as sex, race and age as it gives attention to the admitted difference. The focus is not on equal treatment but on recognising that there may be a need to do something different so that the person with the disability can be treated the same as everybody else: Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92, [198]-[203], [207]; Lonie v LiveBetter Services Limited [2023] NSWCATAD 60, [8].

6. Part 4A of the ADA covers discrimination on the ground of disability. A reference in Part 4A to a person’s disability includes a reference to a disability that the person has (ADA, s 49A(a)).

7. Pursuant to s 49B(1) of the ADA, a person (the perpetrator) discriminates against another person (the aggrieved person) on the ground of disability if the perpetrator:

1. on the ground of the aggrieved person’s disability or the disability of a relative or associate of the aggrieved person, treats the aggrieved person less favourably than in the same circumstances, or in circumstances which are not materially different, the perpetrator treats or would treat a person who does not have that disability or who does not have such a relative or associate who has that disability (direct discrimination), or

2. requires the aggrieved person to comply with a requirement or condition with which a substantially higher proportion of persons who do not have that disability, or who do not have a relative or associate who has that disability, comply or are able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case and with which the aggrieved person does not or is not able to comply (indirect discrimination).

8. Something is done on the ground of a person’s disability. If it is done on the ground of the person’s disability, a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have that disability or a characteristic that is generally imputed to persons who have that disability (ADA, s 49B(2)).

9. The fact that a person who has a disability is accompanied by, or possesses a palliative or therapeutic device, or other mechanical equipment, that provides assistance to the person to alleviate the effect of the disability, is taken to be a characteristic that appertains generally to persons who have that disability (ADA, s 49B(3A)).

Direct discrimination

10. The test for direct discrimination requires the satisfaction of two elements - differential treatment and causation.

11. Once the circumstances of the treatment or intended treatment have been identified, a comparison must be made with the treatment that would have been given to a person without the disability in circumstances that were the same or were not materially different: Purvis, [224].

12. The words “less favourable” require that there be two situations or sets of circumstances, the actual and the hypothesised, so that it can be determined by a comparison whether treatment in the former is "less favourable" than in the latter: Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5, [46].

13. In Purvis, the High Court held that the test for causation is to ask why the complainant was treated as they were. Gleeson CJ dealt with the causation element of direct discrimination by referring to it as the “true basis” for the treatment (Purvis, [157]).

14. The Appeal Panel in Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 considered what ‘on the grounds’ meant in a complaint of race discrimination and victimisation under the ADA. At [36]-[37] the Appeal Panel stated that for complaints of discrimination, for that to be the case, the reason must have been a reason which, either alone or in combination with other reasons, was the true basis for the treatment. Depending on the circumstances, the motive and purpose of the alleged discriminator, as well as the effect on the aggrieved person, may all be relevant. Whether or not the reason was substantial or insubstantial is not the point. The inquiry must focus on whether the reason contributed to the decision, that is, whether it was one of the real, genuine or true reasons for the decision.

Indirect discrimination

15. The phrase “requirement or condition” is not defined in the ADA. The High Court has held, in the context of providing goods or services, a person should be regarded as imposing a “requirement or condition” when he intimates, expressly or inferentially, that some stipulation or set of circumstances must be obeyed or endured if those goods and services are to be acquired, used or enjoyed: Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1992) 173 CLR 349, [21].

16. The onus of proving that a requirement or condition was not reasonable lies on the complainant: Waters, [33]; Vines v Djordjevitch (1955) 91 CLR 512, 519-520.

17. In order to establish indirect discrimination, the complainant needs to show that a substantially higher proportion of people who do not have the complainant's status, comply or are able to comply with the alleged requirement or condition. To undertake that comparison, it is necessary to “carefully select the base group or pool” which is to be used for the purpose of contrasting compliance with the requirement or condition. The pool is all of the people to whom the challenged requirement or condition is applied or is potentially applied: Bonella & Ors v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194 at [77].

Disability discrimination in the provision of goods or services

18. Section 49M(a) of the ADA states that it is unlawful for a person who provides, for payment or not, goods or services to discriminate against a person on the ground of disability:

1. by refusing to provide the person with those goods or services, or

2. in the terms on which he or she provides the person with those goods or services.

19. “Goods and services” is not defined in the ADA. “Goods” is defined in the Australian Consumer Law (Competition and Consumer Act 2000 (Cth), Sch 2, s 2(1)) as including:

1. ships, aircraft and other vehicles

2. animals, including fish

3. minerals, trees and crops, whether on, under or attached to land or not

4. gas and electricity

5. computer software

6. second - hand goods

7. any component part of, or accessory to, goods.

20. “Services” is defined in the Australian Consumer Law as including any rights (including rights in relation to, and interests in, real or personal property), benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred in trade or commerce and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the rights, benefits, privileges or facilities that are, or are to be, provided, granted or conferred under:

1. a contract for or in relation to:

1. the performance of work (including work of a professional nature), whether with or without the supply of goods, or

2. the provision of, or the use or enjoyment of facilities for, amusement, entertainment, recreation or instruction, or

3. the conferring of rights, benefits or privileges for which remuneration is payable in the form of a royalty, tribute, levy or similar exaction; or

2. a contract of insurance, or

3. a contract between a banker and a customer of the banker  entered into in the course of the carrying on by the banker of the business of banking, or

4.  any contract for or in relation to the lending of money.

21. It is noted in this definition that “services” does not include rights or benefits being the supply of goods or the performance of work under a contract of service.

Exceptions

22. In some circumstances, discriminating against a person on the ground of disability is not unlawful if an exception applies.

23. The onus of proving the exception from conduct that is unlawful under the ADA or that is a contravention of the ADA, lies on the respondent (ADA, s 104).

Unjustifiable hardship

24. Section 49C of the ADA provides that in determining what constitutes unjustifiable hardship for the purposes of Part 4A, all relevant circumstances of the particular case are to be taken into account including:

1. the nature of the benefit or detriment likely to accrue or be suffered by any persons concerned, and

2. the effect of the disability of a person concerned, and

3. the financial circumstances and the estimated amount of expenditure required to be made by the person claiming unjustifiable hardship.

25. It is not unlawful to discriminate against a person on the ground of the person’s disability if the provision of the goods or services would impose unjustifiable hardship on the person who provides the goods or services (ADA, s 49M(2)).

Acts done under statutory authority

26. Section 54(1) of the ADA provides that nothing in the ADA renders unlawful anything done by a person if it was necessary for the person to do it in order to comply with a requirement of:

1. any other Act, whether passed before or after the ADA

2. any regulation, ordinance, by-law, rule or other instrument made under any such other Act.

Volunteer bodies

27. Nothing in the ADA affects any rule or practice of a volunteer body (the activities of which are carried on otherwise than for profit and which is not established by an Act of Parliament) which restricts admissions to membership of that body or the provision of benefits, facilities or services to members of that body (ADA, s 57).

Victimisation

28. According to s 50(1) of the ADA, it is unlawful for a person (the discriminator) to subject another person (the person victimised) to any detriment in any circumstances on the ground that the person victimised has:

1. brought proceedings against the discriminator or any other person under the ADA,

2. given evidence or information in connection with proceedings brought by any person against the discriminator or any other person under the ADA,

3. alleged that the discriminator or any other person has committed an act which, whether or not the allegation so states, would amount to a contravention of the ADA,

4. otherwise done anything under or by reference to the ADA in relation to the discriminator or any other person,

5. or by reason that the discriminator knows that the person victimised intends to do any of those things, or suspects that the person victimised has done, or intends to do, any of them.

29. Section 50(1) of the ADA does not apply to the subjecting of a person to a detriment by reason of an allegation made by the person if the allegation was false and not made in good faith (ADA, s 50(2)).

30. In Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44 at [41], the Tribunal considered what the word ‘detriment’ meant in the context of a complaint of victimisation. The Tribunal stated that the detriment suffered must be “real and not trivial” and “whether something constitutes a detriment must be determined objectively and not subjectively. In other words, it is not sufficient for the complainant to allege that he has suffered some consequence at the hands of the respondent which he characterises as a detriment; the loss, damage or injury suffered by the complainant must be something which a reasonable person would consider to be a detriment”.

31. The Tribunal in Sivananthan at [40] referred to the formal Equal Opportunity Tribunal’s statement in Shaikh v Commissioner, NSW Fire Brigades (1996) EPC 92-808 at page 76, 986: 

The elements of victimisation can be described as a four-fold requirement. Firstly, the Respondent must have caused the complainant to undergo or experience something. Secondly, the complainant must have suffered some consequential detriment in any circumstances. Thirdly, that detriment must have occurred on one of the grounds set out in sub-paragraph (a) to (d) of section 50(1). Fourthly, it must appear that the complainant did one of the things referred to in sub-paragraphs (a) to (d). Under sub-section (2) the Respondent has a complete answer to the claim if it is shown the allegation of discrimination was not made in good faith.

32. If the complainant was subjected to a relevant detriment, the next question is whether the complainant has done one of the things provided for in s 50(1) of the ADA and whether such conduct "was at least one of the 'real', 'genuine' or 'true' reasons for being subjected to a detriment": Nicholls & Nicholls, [37].

Powers of the Tribunal in proceedings relating to a complaint

33. Section 103(1) of the ADA provides that the Tribunal may, on application of a party to a complaint or on its own motion, at any stage in the proceedings relating to the complaint, amend the complaint. A complaint may be amended to include additional complaints and anything else that was not included in the complaint as investigated by the President (ADA, s 103(2)).

34. Section 100 of the ADA provides that if the Tribunal is of the opinion that two or more complaints arise out of the same or substantially the same circumstances or subject-matter, it may deal with those complaints in the same proceedings.

35. Section 108(1)(a) of the ADA provides that in proceedings relating to a complaint, the Tribunal may:

1. dismiss the complaint in whole or in part, or

2. find the complaint substantiated in whole or in part.

36. If the Tribunal finds the complaint substantiated in whole or in part, it may do any one or more of the following (ADA, s 108(2)):

1. except in respect of a matter referred to the Tribunal under s 95(2), order the respondent to pay the complainant damages not exceeding $100,000 by way of compensation for any loss or damage suffered by reason of the respondent’s conduct,

2. make an order enjoining the respondent from continuing or repeating any conduct rendered unlawful by the ADA or the regulations,

3. except in respect of a representative complaint or a matter referred to the Tribunal under s 95(2), order the respondent to perform any reasonable act or course of conduct to redress any loss or damage suffered by the complainant,

4. order the respondent to publish an apology or a retraction (or both) in respect of the matter the subject of the complaint and, as part of the order, give directions concerning the time, form, extent and manner of publication of the apology or retraction (or both),

5. in respect of a vilification complaint, order the respondent to develop and implement a program or policy aimed at eliminating unlawful discrimination,

6. make an order declaring void in whole or in part and either ab initio or from such time as is specified in the order any contract or agreement made in contravention of this Act or the regulations,

7. decline to take any further action in the matter.

37. An order of the Tribunal may extend to conduct of the respondent that affects persons other than the complainant or complainants if the Tribunal, having regard to the circumstances of the case, considers that such an extension is appropriate (ADA, s 108(3)).

Background and evidence before the Tribunal

38. In this matter it is not contested that GPJ has a disability in the form of a diagnosed neurological condition which requires the use of a motorised wheelchair.

39. GZH confirmed that it is not a registered club, as defined in the ADA. GZH is a not-for-profit Horse Association. Amongst other activities, GZH organises horse shows which are judged competitions where horses/ponies and competitors compete in various classes.

40. In mid-2023, GZH held a horse show (“the First Show”) with both riding and leading classes. A riding class refers to competitors riding a horse. A leading class refers to competitors walking and leading/handling a horse. At the time of the First Show, the rules of GZH required that all competitors in the riding class wear a helmet. There was no rule for competitors in the leading class to wear a helmet.

41. GPK registered one of GPK’s other children (not GPJ) twice in a leading class event for youth in the First Show. A child is not able to enter into this event more than once. Upon discovering this prior to the First Show, the President of GZH (“the President”) contacted GPK via Facebook Messenger and advised that the child was not able to be entered twice in the same event. GPK advised the President that the second entry was for GPJ. The President requested that GPJ be registered separately as GPJ was not insured to participate in the First Show (without being registered). GPJ’s pony was also required to be registered.

42. During cross-examination, GPK was asked why GPJ was not registered separately in first instance. GPK stated that this was due to laziness. The President, under cross-examination, referred to this as a “bit cloak and dagger” and said that they should have been given the “heads up”.

43. The President maintains that at this time, prior to the First Show, the President was not aware of who GPJ was and was not aware that GPJ had a disability or used a motorised wheelchair. There was evidence before the Tribunal that the President had been sent a photo of GPJ’s wheelchair by GPK, with a request for it to be stored onsite. The President had offered to put it in a stable but was not aware that it was GPJ’s wheelchair. The message did not indicate that it was a wheelchair.

38. GPK then subsequently registered GPJ and GPJ’s pony in the leading class event for youth.

39. Prior to GPJ competing in the First Show, GZH had not had a participant compete in a horse show in a motorised wheelchair for over ten years. The last known person to compete in a motorised wheelchair was an adult.

40. GZH is required to provide a risk assessment to the venue where horse shows are held, prior to every show. The purpose of a risk assessment is to identify potential risks of holding the event, the potential impact of the risks identified, and to identify measures that can be implemented to mitigate the risks. It was not disputed that this is an important process to ensure that the horse shows that it organises are safe for competitors and patrons. While GPK gave evidence that GPK runs horse shows and has never done a risk assessment, GPK conceded during cross-examination that every event holder who seeks to be covered by an insurance policy, needs to take reasonable care and all reasonable precaution to prevent bodily injury.

41. A risk assessment for the First Show was completed by a member of GZH who performs risk assessments on behalf of GZH (“the Risk Assessor”). The Risk Assessor has a background in workplace, health and safety, and a Diploma in Work, Health and Safety. The Risk Assessor started riding horses from the age of five and has been involved with Horse Associations since a teenager.

42. The fact of GPJ competing with a motorised wheelchair was not included in the risk assessment prior to the First Show.

43. GPJ participated in the First Show in the leading class event for youth, without wearing a helmet. It was not a requirement for youth competitors in the leading class to wear a helmet according to GZH’s rules at the time. There were no rules at the time regarding competitor’s use of motorised vehicles.

44. During the First Show, the President observed GPJ and observed that horses reacted to GPJ’s motorised wheelchair. The President observed an incident where another competitor’s horse tried to get loose and knocked the head of the person leading the horse. The person leading the horse was wearing a helmet. This incident was recorded by the President in an incident report.

45. The Risk Assessor was not present at the First Show. Shortly after the First Show, the Risk Assessor was informed that GPJ had competed in the First Show in a motorised vehicle without a helmet.

46. After the First Show, the President was approached by a representative of the Agricultural Association responsible for managing the bookings of the venue on which the First Show was held. This representative expressed concerns that there was a child in a motorised vehicle in the arena amongst horses without any protective headwear on. The representative queried whether this was included in the risk assessment for the First Show. The President indicated that it had not been included as the President was not aware that there would be a competitor in a motorised vehicle. The President apologised and advised this representative that GZH would put in place policies and procedures to manage the safety of competitors in motorised vehicles for future events.

47. The next horse show was held in late 2023 (“the Second Show”).

48. The Risk Assessor completed the risk assessment for the Second Show. “Competitor using mobility/disability/motorised equipment is injured by a horse” was included as an area of risk. This risk was assessed as “high”. The “control measure” for this risk was that:

All competitors using motorised assistance equipment are required to wear an EA approved safety helmet. GZH committee is to be notified before commencement of show that a competitor will be using mobility/disability/motorised equipment so that arrangements can be made for them to enter the show ring in a manner that is less likely to alarm other horses.

55. Prior to the Second Show, GZH held a Committee Meeting, during which, amongst other items of business, GZH’s rules were reviewed. The risk assessment policy for the Second Show was discussed “with the hindsight of incidents” that occurred at the First Show. The Committee members (which included the President and the Risk Assessor as well as others) voted that the rules be updated to require that anyone using a motorised vehicle in the show ring wear an approved safety helmet.

56. The reasons that the Risk Assessor voted in favour of proposed change to the rules included:

1. The Risk Assessor’s concerns that those in a motorised vehicle were more likely to startle a horse to kick out and subsequently were at a greater risk of an injury.

2. That head protection such as a helmet would afford greater protection if a horse did kick out.

3. The Risk Assessor’s concern if a person competed in a motorised vehicle without a helmet, they would not be covered by GZH’s insurance policy.

4. That if this rule was not introduced, where completing the risk assessments and more particularly the steps taken to minimise the risk, that without the requirement for a person to wear a helmet to minimise the risk of a head injury, venues may deny the application by GZH to use their venue.

57. The reasons that the President voted in favour of the proposed change to the rules was that:

1. In the President’s view, the height of a motorised vehicle would mean that a competitor’s head was at a ‘kickable height’ if a horse was frightened and kicked out, as the President had observed they tended to do when startled or spooked.

2. In the President’s experience with horses (of about 40 years), the President had observed that horses are startled easily particularly when they are in unfamiliar surroundings. These horses in the arena would not be used to seeing, or hearing a person in a motorised vehicle and the President was concerned that the motorised vehicle may startle the horses, which the President had seen first-hand at the First Show.

3. That in the event a horse became startled in the ring, a person operating a motorised vehicle may have difficulty avoiding the horse, due to the limited mobility on a motorised vehicle.

4. A helmet would offer protection from the risk of head injury.

58. The members at the Committee Meeting noted that they would send an email to GPK stating that GPJ needs to wear a safety helmet when GPJ is showing. It was noted that “This requirement for competitor requiring mobility/disability/motorised assistance has been included in our risk assessment”.

59. GZH’s rules were amended before the Second Show and included in the program. It is not disputed that anyone registering for a horse show is expected to read and agree to the rules. After the words “General Rules & Conditions” included in the schedule for the Second Show is “Please Read Carefully”. The following was the relevant new part of the GZH rules for the Second Show:

If you require mobility/disability/motorised assistance to the ring or in the ring, Please contact the organising committee via email […] so that this may be included in the event’s risk assessment. This ensures correct safety procedures are followed as per the association’s risk assessment policy. All participants using motorised/mobility assistance are required to wear an EA approved safety helmet.

60. The President gave evidence that the program for the Second Show was attached to a Facebook post prior to the Second Show.

61. During cross-examination, GPK stated that GPK did not know anyone that reads all the rules prior to a horse show. GPK stated that the new part of the rules was “something I had missed”.

62. On the same day of the Committee Meeting, the Tuesday before the weekend that the Second Show was to be held, an email was sent from the Secretary of GZH to GPK stating:

At tonight’s committee meeting where […] entries were discussed, we became aware that your […] will be competing on the weekend. To ensure correct safety procedures are followed as per the event’s risk assessment policy, we require any competitor using mobility/disability/motorised assistance to or in the ring, to wear an EA approved safety helmet. This is part of the conditions of entry which appeared in the schedule for […]. We look forward to seeing […] compete on the weekend and at future GZH events.

63. GPK maintains that GPK did not receive this email and that it might have gone to ‘spam’ and been automatically deleted before it was read.

64. GPK registered GPJ in a number of events for the Second Show. GPK signed a release and waiver of liability form which included an agreement to follow the directions of any event organiser or official, and to wear an approved helmet at all times while participating in the sport where this is required under the relevant rules and regulations of the Society (for the relevant breed of horse in this matter) (“the Society”).

65. The Society’s 2023 Rule Book, which was included in the evidence before the Tribunal, stated that the rules in the Rule Book, in conjunction with the Registry Rules and Judge Rules, shall apply to all events for their particular breed of horse. The Rule Book also stated that specific rules for individual shows and events may also be applied providing that they do not contravene the Society’s Rule Book. The Society’s Rule Book stated that “Approved safety helmets are permitted in Youth Handler classes.” The Society’s Rule Book did not contain any provisions that relate to competitors in motorised vehicles, including motorised wheelchairs. The Rule Book did note that for “disabled competitors” a variation of the requirement to lead the horse on the left side can be requested.

66. The Society’s 2023 Rule Book stated that an event organiser should be acutely aware of the necessity for adequate insurance coverage for any liability arising from incidents which could occur at horse shows.

67. Prior to the Second Show, GPK did not contact the GZH Committee to advise that GPJ would be competing in a motorised wheelchair, in accordance with the new rule.

68. On the morning of the Second Show, the President spoke with a family member of GPK’s, present at the show. The President asked this family member if GPK had received the email from the GZH Committee about the change in the rules and if GPJ had obtained a helmet to compete. The family member then requested that GPK join this discussion. A discussion then took place between the President, GPK and the family member. The President explained the requirement for GPJ to wear a helmet. The President offered for GPJ to enter the arena from a separate entry, which GPK refused. GPK stated that this was discrimination against GPJ. The President claims that GPK and the family member were shouting and acting aggressively during this discussion, which is denied by GPK.

69. GPK made an adjustment to GPJ’s wheelchair by removing the head support, which GPK states was to allow GPJ to wear a helmet while seated. GPJ wore GPJ’s sibling’s helmet and competed in the events for which GPJ was registered at the Second Show.

70. Later during the day of the Second Show, the President heard GPK talking to other competitors and using the words “discrimination” and “unfair”. The President heard GPK to be “quite loud and aggressive” and then told GPK “that it’s okay, you won’t need to worry about entering the next show, I will red card you and you will not have to attend”.

71. Two days later, GPK lodged a complaint with Anti-Discrimination NSW on behalf of GPJ against GZH, alleging disability discrimination in goods and services.

72. Anti-Discrimination NSW accepted for investigation this complaint of disability discrimination in the provision of goods and services against GZH as follows:

1. GZH stipulates as a requirement for participating in events, GPJ is required to wear a helmet as GPJ is in a wheelchair.

2. GZH has stopped GPJ from showing GPJ’s pony and seeks to rely on an insurance requirement.

3. Due to GPJ’s disability, GPJ is unable to wear a helmet. GPJ needs the headrest on the wheelchair for support. If GPK accommodates GZH’s complaint requirement for GPJ to wear a helmet, there is a risk to GPJ.

4. GZH has also requested that GPJ sit right over on the other side of the ground.

73. Since the Second Show, GPK has not sought to register GPJ in any horse shows held by GZH. GPK did apply to register GPJ’s sibling in a GZH horse show in the second half of 2024, however this application was not accepted by GZH and the fee for registration was refunded to GPK.

74. GZH received two complaints in mid-2024 about GPK’s conduct at a horse show held by GZH which GPK attended, held in mid-2024. GPJ was not present at this show. It was alleged that GPK was “boasting to people ringside” that GPK “was suing the association”, and the conversation “became loud and emotional, featuring explicit language and accusations of discrimination”.

75. On 13 August 2024, after unsuccessful attempts to resolve the matter, GPK requested that the complaint be referred to the Tribunal. On 28 August 2024, the President of Anti-Discrimination NSW referred the complaint to the Tribunal under s 93C of the ADA.

76. After the proceedings commenced in the Tribunal, GPK agreed to a media story about the matter. According to GPK, this was done as GPK thought it would help resolve the matter. GZH decided to cancel some of the upcoming horse shows due to the Tribunal proceedings and the aftermath of the media story, which according to the President, included “hate mail”, 344 death threats, being approached by reporters, negative references to the President’s own business, and GPK stating “thank God […] (the President) doesn’t have children”. There was evidence before the Tribunal of numerous Facebook messages from members of the public that contained negative messages against both GZH and GPK about the requirement for GPJ to wear a helmet.

77. GZH’s rules were further amended for the first 2024 horse show it organised. The following is the relevant part of the rules:

Please ensure that all youth competitors/handlers/riders wear an EA approved helmet with safety harness, except competitors in youth “fashions on the field” event. Competitors in this event, must maintain a two horse distance, and only walk around the ring.

Non-motorised, wheeled trolleys, prams etc must remain outside the main arena fence at all times and must NOT not [sic] be taken onto the main arena.

The Association will ensure that special classes are provided for those competitors requiring any motorised mobility assistance aids, and will timetable these for when there will be minimal disruptions to other competitors and horses (i.e. first class of the day, or in a lunch break), in order to minimise the risk of an accident occurring from horses becoming spooked and/or agitated by these vehicles. If available, we will provide a separate, less populated/busy entry/exit to the main arena for the safety of these competitors.

78. On 1 May 2025 and 2 May 2025, with the Tribunal satisfied it had jurisdiction in the matter, a hearing was held. GPJ was present for the duration of the hearing.

79. During the hearing, documents were tendered in both cases (Exhibits 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, and 17 for GPJ and GPK and Exhibits 5, ,6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 18 for GZH). GPK, GPK’s family member, the President and the Risk Assessor were cross-examined during the hearing. GZH relied on written submissions and made oral submissions during the hearing. The Agent for GPJ and GPK, who was granted leave to appear as an agent, made oral submissions on behalf of GPJ and GPK.

80. During the hearing, on application by GPK and with the consent of GZH, the Tribunal amended the complaint to include a complaint of victimisation of GPK by GZH under s 50(1) of the ADA. GPK alleges that GZH:

1. Refused show entries for GPK’s other child and GPK’s family member for no valid reason and has instead tried to blackmail GPK into dropping all legal proceedings to then consider GPK’s family entries.

2. Cancelled all future events and publicly named GPK and the legal process as the reason for the cancellation of those events.

3. As a result of the discrimination complaint concerning GPJ, the President has victimised and vilified GPK with the above actions, trying to bully GPK into dropping GPK’s case against GZH.

81. The Tribunal decided to deal with the complaint of disability discrimination concerning GPJ and the complaint of victimisation concerning GPK, in the same proceedings.

Parts of the disability discrimination complaint that cannot be substantiated

82. The task of the Tribunal is to decide whether to substantiate the complaint in whole or in part.

83. In relation to the complaint referred to the Tribunal, there are parts of this complaint that are not supported by evidence of weight and simply cannot be substantiated. The Tribunal will address these parts of the complaint before turning to the other part of the complaint which requires further consideration.

Stopping GPJ from showing GPJ’s pony

84. It is not the case, on the evidence before the Tribunal, that GPJ has been stopped by GZH from showing GPJ’s pony. GPJ competed in all events for which GPJ was registered at the First Show and Second Show. There is no evidence to suggest that GPK has since sought to register GPJ at a horse show run by GZH and has been refused. The Tribunal is therefore not able to substantiate that “GZH has stopped GPJ from showing GPJ’s pony and seeks to rely on an insurance requirement”.

GPJ not being able to wear a helmet while showing a horse

85. There was no expert or medical or corroborative evidence before the Tribunal to support a finding that GPJ is not able to wear a helmet, or if GPJ does wear a helmet, it is a risk to GPJ’s health. GPK conceded that for nearly two years since the Second Show, GPK has not obtained a report from GPJ’s treating specialist or occupational therapist about GPJ wearing a helmet while competing in the leading class at horse shows. GPK conceded, during cross-examination, that GZH had been requesting medical documentation since the complaint was lodged, but this documentation had not been provided by GPK. GPK also conceded, during cross-examination, that none of GPJ’s specialists had physically assessed a helmet.

86. GPK gave evidence, from GPK’s own experience as the parent of GPJ, that wearing a helmet or anything that places weight on GPJ’s body can cause GPJ muscle fatigue, as GPJ’s muscles don’t have strength, and this causes damage. GPK clarified that ‘damage’ meant muscle wastage, strain and deterioration. GPK did concede that it was OK for GPJ to wear a helmet temporarily, but it was not OK for the “long-term”. While the Tribunal appreciates that GPK has lived experience as the parent of GPK, the Tribunal is not able to place any weight on this evidence because it is not supported by any evidence from any of GPJ’s treating practitioners.

87. In the Points of Claim, GPK noted that they were forced to take supports (i.e. the head rest) off GPJ’s chair so that GPJ could compete at the Second Show and “risk damage from not having the supports”. There was however no evidence before the Tribunal from any of GPJ’s treating specialists or a medical professional about the necessity or otherwise of the head rest on GPK’s chair, whether there was risk to GPJ if the head rest was removed for the time that GPJ was required to wear a helmet while competing at the horse show, whether any modification could be made to the chair to support GPJ wearing a helmet (i.e. whether the risk, if there was one, could be mitigated), or whether there was a type of helmet that did not require head rests to be removed or modified.

88. There was photographic evidence before the Tribunal that GPJ wore a helmet:

1. Around May 2023 and before the First Show, while sitting in a motorised wheelchair next to a horse. This photograph was posted on Facebook by GPK.

2. At the Second Show, while sitting in a motorised wheelchair.

3. Since the Second Show, GPJ received a free light weight helmet from a company which GPJ wore. Photographs of GPJ wearing this helmet were posted on Facebook by GPK. This helmet is Equestrian Association (EA) approved and according to GPK, not “pushing […] forward like other helmets were”, which GPK was thankful for.

89. Included in the evidence before the Tribunal was a NDIS Progress Report for GPJ prepared by an Occupational Therapist in July 2021. It appears that this report may have been written when horse riding was being considered for GPJ. GPJ is currently not able to ride a horse. The Occupational Therapist noted in the report that GPJ requires appropriate equipment to be able to engage in horse riding, which was an activity of great importance to GPJ and one often engaged in prior to GPJ’s decline in mobility. The report noted that “access to horse riding safely is required” to support GPJ’s independence in leisure activities, as well as to support mental health and social participation.

90. Given the lack of expert or medical or corroborative evidence, the Tribunal is therefore not able to substantiate or accept that “Due to GPJ’s disability, GPJ is unable to wear a helmet. GPJ needs the headrest on the wheelchair for support. If GPK accommodates GZH’s complaint requirement for GPJ to wear a helmet, there is a risk to GPJ.”

GPJ being required to sit on the other side of the venue for the horse show

91. There is no reliable corroborative evidence before the Tribunal that during the Second Show, the President or any member of GZH requested that GPJ sit on the other side of the ground or that GPJ did in fact do so. The President denied that GPJ was required or even asked to sit in a separate area to other competitors for the Second Show. GPK contends that during the discussion with the President on the morning of the Second Show, the President said that GPJ was to sit over in the distance so that GPJ did not spook any horse. GPK stated that GPJ did not sit away from everyone.

92. The rules for the Second Show referred to the requirement to notify the GZH Committee if a competitor required mobility/disability/motorised assistance to the ring or in the ring so that this could be included in the event’s risk assessment. The rules also required that all participants using motorised/mobility assistance wear an EA approved safety helmet. There was no requirement in the rules that competitors using motorised/mobility assistance sit in a separate or designated area.

93. The 2024 changes to GZH’s rules in relation to special classes for competitors requiring motorised mobility assistance aids, the timetabling of those classes, and the use of separate, less populated/busy entry/exit to the main arena, post-date the complaint referred to the Tribunal and no application was made by the Applicants for this to be added to the complaint.

94. It follows that the Tribunal is not able to substantiate that “GZH has also requested that GPJ sit right over on the other side of the ground”.

Direct discrimination or indirect discrimination?

95. What is then left of the disability discrimination complaint for the Tribunal to consider, is whether “GZH stipulates as a requirement for participating in events, GPJ is required to wear a helmet as GPJ is in a wheelchair”

96. The new rule for the Second Show was that “All participants using motorised/mobility assistance are required to wear an EA approved safety helmet”. While the rule was changed because of the recommendation of the risk assessment following the incident involving GPJ at the First Show when a horse was “spooked” by GPJ’s wheelchair and kicked a participant, the rule was not directed specifically at GPJ. The rule does not name GPJ. For this reason, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the imposition of the new rule could be construed as potential direct discrimination.

97. The submissions made by both parties were focused on the imposition of the new rule, or what could otherwise be considered as a “requirement or condition”, which is the basis of the definition of indirect discrimination in s 49B(1)(b) of the ADA. The Tribunal is of the view that the circumstances of the imposition of the new rule warrant consideration of whether GPJ was subjected to indirect discrimination by GZH.

Issues for determination

98. To decide whether to substantiate the complaint in whole or in part, the following issues are to be determined by the Tribunal:

• Issue 1: Due to GPJ’s disability, did GZH require GPJ to comply with a requirement or condition (wearing a helmet at the Second Show) with which a substantially higher proportion of persons who do not have that disability, comply or able to comply, being a requirement which is not reasonable having regard to the circumstances of the case with which GPJ does not or is not able to comply? (Indirect discrimination)

• Issue 2: If GZH has indirectly discriminated against GPJ on the ground of disability, does one of the following exceptions apply, which means the discrimination is not unlawful (exceptions):

• Unjustifiable hardship

• Acts done under statutory authority

• Volunteer bodies

• Issue 3: Did GZH subject GPK to any detriment (refusal of entries of family members to horse shows and cancelling horse shows) due to GPK making the complaint (victimisation)?

Consideration

Issue 1 – Indirect discrimination

99. GPK contends that GZH has discriminated against GPJ on the grounds of GPJ’s disability, in the provision of goods and services, by stipulating as a requirement for participating in events, that GPJ is required to wear a helmet as GPJ is a wheelchair.

100. As noted above, the new rule for the Second Show was that all participants using motorised/mobility assistance were required to wear an EA approved safety helmet. This rule was general in application to ‘all participants using motorised/mobility assistance’ but had the effect of requiring GPJ as a participant using a motorised wheelchair, to wear a helmet.

Due to GPJ’s disability

101. The use of a motorised wheelchair is a characteristic that appertains to persons with a disability (ADA, ss 49B(2), 49B(3A)). The fact that GPJ uses a motorised wheelchair is a characteristic that appertains to GPJ as a person with a disability.

Requirement or condition

102. The requirement or condition for GPJ to be able to compete in the Second Show was that GPJ wear an EA approved safety helmet.

Substantially higher proportion of persons who do not use motorised or mobility assistance comply or are able to comply

103. GZH submitted that all children who compete in the riding class must wear a helmet. If GPJ was riding a horse, GPJ would have to wear a helmet along with all the other children in the riding class.

104. It was not in dispute that prior to the Second Show, there were no rule requiring children in the leading class to wear a helmet. The Risk Assessor gave evidence, under cross-examination, that most children leading horses in the leading class (who do not use motorised or mobility assistance), keep their helmets on, as they also compete in the riding class, where they are required to wear a helmet.

105. The Tribunal accepts that it is more likely than not that children in the leading class, who do not use motorised or mobility assistance, wear an EA approved helmet when competing or are able to wear an EA approved helmet when competing.

Reasonableness of requirement

106. GPZ submitted in the Points of Claim that “if helmets are to be worn it needs to be enforced on all competitors, not based on the fact that disabled competitors are deemed a higher risk of injury or danger to other competitors.”

107. GZH have made further amendments to the rules which now require that all youth competitors/handlers/riders wear an EA approved helmet with safety harness, except competitors in youth “fashions on the field” event. Competitors in the “fashions in the field” event, must maintain a two horse distance, and only walk around the ring.

108. The President gave evidence that the use of motorised mobility vehicles in competitions in equestrian sport is not common and the EA do not have any health and safety guidance that specifically addresses their use in equestrian sport.

109. GPJ is the only person who has competed in a motorised wheelchair at a horse show run by GZH in over ten years, and the last person in a motorised wheelchair to compete was an adult. Although there was limited evidence before the Tribunal about this adult, it was not contested that this adult was not required to wear a helmet when leading a horse at a horse show run by GZH. There were photographs of this adult competing which confirmed this.

110. The President gave evidence, however, that the last known example of a person competing in a motorised wheelchair was an adult, and that the President had, in the last ten years, observed the EA’s health and safety practices and procedures to change to better ensure the safety of its members. The President stated that an example of this was the risk assessments conducted prior to each event.

111. GPK signed a release and waiver of liability form for GPJ to participate in the Second Show which included an agreement to follow the directions and rules of the Society and GZH, as long as the GZH’s rules did not contravene the Society’s rules. The requirement for all participants using motorised/mobility assistance to wear an EA approved safety helmet was not a contravention of the Society’s rules. The Society’s rules provided that approved safety helmets are permitted in Youth Handler classes. The Society’s Rule Book did not otherwise contain any provisions that relate to competitors in motorised vehicles.

112. The Tribunal accepts that the reasons that the President and Risk Assessor voted in support of changing the rules prior to the Second Show, as recommended by the risk assessment, were valid and prioritised the safety of the competitors. Both the President and Risk Assessor have significant experience with horses which added weight to the evidence that they gave about the reason for the requirement.

113. The view expressed by the President was that it was best practice for all competitors to wear a helmet at horse competitions and for young competitors (under 18 years of age), even more so. The President stated that safety is foremost of importance and that from the President’s experience, horse competitions are a dangerous sport. This is because horses are large animals and can be unpredictable, particularly when startled. The President stated that horses are flight animals and are easily spooked. If spooked, they have a tendency to kick out at perceived threats, or to run away, with no concern for those around them when spooked. The President stated that being trampled or kicked by a horse, can result in serious injury, and even death. The President also stated that horses can react if they see another horse startled. In the President’s view, it is likely that horses may consider a motorised vehicle as a threat, if unfamiliar.

114. GZH relied on an article published by the University of Queensland on 7 April 2017 entitled “Researchers call for children to wear helmets around horses” which referred to research conducted by Dr Jane Theodore. This research involved an examination of six years of data from patients with horse-related injuries at the Royal Children’s Hospital. It was noted that traumatic brain injury was the most common injury sustained, with riders who wore helmets having significantly less severe traumatic brain injuries and shorter stays in hospital compared with those who did not. It was noted that there were more than 40 cases where children suffered non-riding injuries. In this particular group, the majority were not wearing helmets, and more than a third of these sustained a traumatic brain injury. It was noted that children who undertake activities when handling horses, such as grooming, can be injured by horse kicks, being knocked down or trampled. There were three deaths in this period, and more than seven per cent of patients suffered permanent injuries to their brain, eyes, face and limbs. This evidence was not controverted.

115. GPK gave evidence that GPJ’s horse was familiar with GPJ and GPJ’s wheelchair. This, however, does not mean that all other horses that GPJ is to encounter at a horse show, would not react or perceive GPJ’s wheelchair or any motorised vehicle as a threat if not familiar with it. GPJ is the first competitor in a motorised wheelchair in over ten years and has competed at two events.

116. GPK submitted that the wheelchair itself would act to protect GPJ if a horse was to kick GPJ or GPJ was to be trampled by a horse. The Tribunal was not satisfied that this would be the case, particularly if GPJ’s head was not protected. While the wheelchair may afford some protection to parts of GPJ’s body, the wheelchair would not fully protect GPJ’s head. GPJ would also not be able to move or escape if the wheelchair was to tip over or GPJ was injured and not able to operate the wheelchair.

117. The Tribunal notes that not only is the safety of the competitors and spectators important, the safety of the horses and ponies who are part of the competition is also important. The Society’s 2023 Rule Book states that the well-being of the horse is of paramount importance.

118. GZH submitted that it has a primary duty under the Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW) as a person conducting a business or undertaking to ensure as far as reasonably practicable, the health and safety of workers and other persons affected by the activities that it influences or directs. GZH submitted that the Work Health and Safety Regulation 2017 (NSW), requires that a duty holder under the Act must ensure the provision and use of suitable protective equipment, identify potential hazards and implement controls to minimise the exposure to such hazards identified as part of a risk assessment.

119. The Tribunal accepts that these are obligations that GZH has under the work, health and safety framework, and this extends to ensuring that volunteers, competitors and spectators are safe at horse shows. The Tribunal also accepts the mandating that competitors wear helmets when riding and leading horses at horse shows is consistent with these work, health and safety requirements.

120. GZH submitted that it was concerned that if a person competed in a motorised vehicle without a helmet, GZH would not be covered by their insurance policy, and that venues may deny GZH an application to use their venue.

121. In response to this insurance coverage submission, GPK submitted that they signed a waiver when registering for horse shows that they would not hold GZH responsible if there was an injury. In response to this, GZH submitted that a waiver would not protect GZH from a work, health and safety prosecution.

122. In all the circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the requirement that all participants using motorised/mobility assistance wear an EA approved safety helmet, which includes GPJ, is a reasonable requirement.

GPJ’s ability to comply with requirement

123. As noted above, there was no expert or medical or corroborative evidence before the Tribunal to support a finding that GPJ is not able to wear a helmet. On the other hand, there was evidence before the Tribunal that GPJ has worn a helmet while in GPJ’s wheelchair and a lighter EA approved helmet has been provided to GPJ which GPK was notably happy about.

Finding – indirect discrimination

124. It is uncontested and the Tribunal accepts that it was due to GPJ’s disability (GPJ’s use of a motorised wheelchair) that GPJ was required, in the Second Show, to comply with the requirement that all participants using motorised/mobility assistance wear an EA approved safety helmet. The Tribunal also accepts that it is more than likely that children in the leading class who do not use motorised or mobility assistance would comply or are able to comply with this requirement.

125. The Tribunal, however, is satisfied that this requirement is reasonable in all the circumstances. Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied that GPJ is not able to comply with this requirement.

126. It follows that the Tribunal has not substantiated the complaint of disability discrimination as it concerns GPJ.

Issue 2 – Exceptions

127. As the Tribunal has not substantiated the complaint of disability discrimination in whole, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to determine whether any of the relevant exceptions apply.

Issue 3 – Victimisation

128. In support of the complaint of victimisation, GPK submitted that the detriment that GPK has suffered was:

1. Refused show entries for GPK’s other child and GPK’s family member, and

2. Cancellation of all future events, and

3. Being publicly named along with the legal process as the reason for the cancellation of the events, which resulted in negative comments from members of the public towards GPK.

129. The evidence before the Tribunal confirmed that GZH had refunded the fee for one 2024 horse show for GPK’s other child. The evidence before the Tribunal confirmed that three subsequent horse shows were cancelled by GZH, however they recommenced horse shows in the second half of 2024. The evidence did not confirm that GZH had publicly named GPK as the reason for the cancellation of the horse shows. There was no explicit reason cited in the public message issued by GZH about the cancellation of the horse shows.

130. GPK submits that detriment has been suffered because GPK has brought the complaint against GZH. GPK submits that this connection can be made because GZH has tried to “blackmail” GPK to drop the legal proceedings, and GZH has named GPK as the reason for the cancellation of the events.

131. In relation to GPK’s contention that GZH had blackmailed GZH to drop the legal proceedings, GPK relied on part of an exchange of messages between GPK and the President, and GPK and the GZH Committee, in which GZH indicated that they would be willing to discuss GPK’s family’s show entries if GPK dropped the legal proceedings. This proposal, however, was first proposed by GPK who initiated the messages by stating:

I am sending a message, I’d like to discuss the ongoing issue with me children at present. As it is effecting [sic] my children and restricting them from showing and enjoying their horses. All I want is my children to be able to show their horses without being punished or restricted in any way. All I need is confirmation from you that my children can go out and do that in the same context as any other child. If this can be guaranteed I’m more than happy to drop all legal proceedings as all I want is my children to be able to show and enjoy there [sic] horses without the harassment and discrimination.

132. The President had written to the Society one month after the Second Show, advising the Society of what had occurred at the Second Show, including what the President had heard GPK state to other persons present. The President referred in the letter to “venomous negativity towards voluntary show committees”, the President’s intention to protect the committee fiercely from “hideous negativity and aggression” and that it was their duty to keep safe competitors of all levels. The President gave evidence about two formal complaints that GZH had received about the negative behaviour of GPK and GPK’s family member at a 2024 show. The President also gave evidence about GPK’s family member breaching the social media policy of the Society, GPK getting the media involved in the matter and the adverse effect this has had on the President and GZH.

133. The refusal of show entries and not being able to compete in horse shows could be considered a detriment to GPK, in terms of a loss of opportunities and recreational enjoyment for GPK’s child and GPK’s family member. The Tribunal however is not satisfied that GZH blackmailed GPK, as alleged by GPK. The offer to drop legal proceedings was first made by GPK. The Tribunal is also not satisfied that GZH refused GPK’s family’s entries because GPK had made a disability discrimination complaint. It is evident that GZH made the decision to refuse GPK’s family entries because of GPK’s conduct as observed at horse shows, in bringing the matter to the media, and the comments that were posted online, leading to numerous negative comments and death threats directed to the President and GZH.

132. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has not substantiated the complaint of victimisation as it concerns GPK.

Conclusion

135. For the reasons detailed above, the Tribunal has not substantiated the disability discrimination complaint as it concerns GPJ.

136. For the reasons detailed above, the Tribunal has not substantiated the complaint of victimisation as it concerns GPK.

137. The Tribunal has therefore decided to dismiss the whole of the complaint pursuant to s 108(1)(a) of the ADA.

Message for GPJ

138. The Tribunal was very impressed with how you were able to sit patiently through two days of hearing and listen to a lot of information and legal arguments. Your family told the Tribunal that you had been waiting for this hearing.

139. The Tribunal cannot state your name, or the name of anyone in your family, or the name anyone who was at the hearing or the name of the Horse Association. This is to protect everyone’s privacy. The Tribunal made an order that the names of the people involved in your matter are not to be published. This means that the names of people involved in the hearing, or information that might lead to someone finding out who they are, cannot be posted online or on Facebook or published in the media.

140. The Tribunal knows that your family are very proud of you and want you to be able to continue showing your pony at horse shows.

141. After reading all the information and thinking about the case, the Tribunal decided that you were not discriminated against because you had to wear a helmet at the second horse show you competed at. This is a rule that applied in this second show, to all people who need to use a motorised wheelchair.

142. The rule that you must wear a helmet at the horse show with this Horse Association was for your protection, to keep you and others, including the horses and ponies, safe from injury. Your safety is very important. As you probably already know, horses can get spooked and kick out or run off and cause injury to people. Your pony might be used to you and is very good with you, however, no one can predict how other horses might react to something that they are not used to, like the sound and movement of your wheelchair. This shouldn’t prevent you from competing. When you do compete with your pony, everyone should do what they can to keep you and others safe.

143. The rule also helps the Horse Association continue to run horse shows. The Horse Association needs to make sure that they do all that they can to prevent people from getting injured and if they do get injured, that there will be insurance coverage.

144. The Tribunal decided that the rule about wearing a helmet was reasonable. Unfortunately, the Tribunal also did not have any recent reports from your doctor or occupational therapist to help the Tribunal make a decision.

145. The Tribunal’s decision does not mean that you cannot compete at horse shows with your pony. If you do compete at the horse shows with the Horse Association, then you will be required to wear a helmet. All youth competitors, handlers and riders now have to wear a helmet at horse shows run by this Horse Association.

146. The Tribunal saw photographs of the new light weight helmet you received from a company that makes helmets for horse riding, which your family was happy about.

147. It has been over ten years since a person in a motorised wheelchair has competed in a horse show. And that person was an adult. You should be very proud in your amazing achievement of leading your pony at two horse shows.

148. At the end of the hearing, the Tribunal encouraged you to follow your dreams, no matter what the decision was. You are an amazing and brave young man, and an inspiration to other children. Your family said that you have already inspired children who use wheelchairs. The Tribunal wishes you the very best.

Order

1. Pursuant to s 108(1)(a) of the ADA, the Tribunal dismisses the whole of the complaint.

**********

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

Registrar

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.

Registrar

Decision last updated: 29 May 2025