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

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

Relevant law

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

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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading GPJ v GZH

Details

AGLC: GPJ v GZH [2025] NSWCATAD 118
Case: [2025] NSWCATAD 118
Decision Date: 29 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of GPJ v GZH involved a complaint of disability discrimination brought under the Anti-Discrimination Act. The complainant, GPJ, alleged that GZH, a healthcare provider, had engaged in both direct and indirect discrimination against them due to their disability. The dispute was heard and dismissed by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The central legal issues before the Tribunal were whether GZH had indeed engaged in discriminatory conduct against GPJ, and if so, whether such conduct constituted direct or indirect discrimination, or victimisation.

The Tribunal examined the evidence and found that there was no substantial basis for concluding that GZH had engaged in any discriminatory behaviour. It was determined that GZH had provided GPJ with the same level of care and services as any other patient, without regard to their disability. The Tribunal held that there was no evidence to support the claim of direct discrimination, as there was no differential treatment based on disability. Similarly, the Tribunal found that there was no indirect discrimination, as any policies or practices in place were applied equally and did not disproportionately affect GPJ due to their disability. The Tribunal also found that there was no evidence of victimisation, as GPJ had not suffered any adverse action as a result of making a complaint or participating in proceedings related to disability discrimination.

In light of the findings, the Tribunal dismissed the whole of the complaint under section 108(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act. The Tribunal was satisfied that there was insufficient evidence to establish that GZH had engaged in any discriminatory conduct against GPJ. The decision underscores the importance of a robust evidentiary standard in disability discrimination cases and highlights the Tribunal's role in ensuring that such claims are substantiated by credible evidence. The dismissal of the complaint reinforces the principle that healthcare providers must be able to deliver services without fear of unfounded allegations of discrimination.

Orders

Orders of the court

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

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

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).