Grovenor v Eldridge

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Grovenor v Eldridge [2000] FCA 1574

DISCRIMINATION LAW – application for an order to enforce a determination made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – applicant and her guide dog refused access to respondent’s store - whether conduct unlawful pursuant to s 23(1)(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 9, 23

LAURIE GROVENOR v JOHN ELDRIDGE
N 981 of 2000

STONE J
19 OCTOBER 2000
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 981 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	LAURIE GROVENOR APPLICANT
AND:	JOHN ELDRIDGE RESPONDENT
JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE OF ORDER:	19 OCTOBER 2000
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.It be declared that on 2 January 1998 the respondent engaged in conduct which is unlawful pursuant to s 23(1)(a) of the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth).

2.The respondent pay to the applicant damages in the amount of $1,000.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 981 OF 2000

BETWEEN:	LAURIE GROVENOR APPLICANT
AND:	JOHN ELDRIDGE RESPONDENT

JUDGE:	STONE J
DATE:	19 OCTOBER 2000
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an order to enforce a determination made by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission pursuant to s 103(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The application is made under s 13 of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1)1999 (Cth) and s 105A of the Disability Discrimination Act1992 (Cth).

2. The applicant’s complaint arises out of an incident said to have occurred in January 1998 and in respect of which the applicant has submitted affidavit evidence. 

3. In brief, the applicant’s evidence is that on 2 January 1998, she visited a store known as Young Furniture Traders in Young, New South Wales accompanied by two friends. The applicant, who is visually impaired, was accompanied by a guide dog.  On entering the store she was told by the owner of the store, Mr John Eldridge, the respondent in these proceedings, to take the dog out.  Mr Eldridge refused to accept the applicant's claim that she is visually impaired and, in an aggressive and intimidating tone, ordered her out of the store saying he didn’t care if the dog was a guide dog.

4. The applicant believes that Mr Eldridge may have had the impression that she could see because she has been trained in public relations, including to look at people when they speak. Using a mobile phone, the applicant telephoned the police for assistance but was told that the police could not intervene as it was “a discrimination matter”. The applicant left the store and, while she was standing with her friends outside the entrance writing down details of the incident, Mr Eldridge again ordered her to get off his property. He also screamed at the applicant saying, “Go ahead, ruin me. Run me…