Hope v Danianarnie Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 54 min read

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Hope v Danianarnie Pty Ltd & Anor [2025] QCAT 275
PARTIES: JAMIE HOPE

(first applicant)

JODEY HOPE

(second applicant)

v
DANIANARNIE PTY LTD

(first respondent)

MICHELLE IRVINE

(second respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL070-23 and ADL071-23

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

7 July 2025

HEARING DATES:

7, 8 and 9 April 2025
Final written submissions concluding 6 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member P Roney KC
ORDERS:

1.   The applications are dismissed.

2.   The parties have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.
CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – GROUNDS OF DISCRIMINATION – DISABILITY OR IMPAIRMENT  – direct discrimination – indirect discrimination – where applicants had various impairments within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – whether applicants’ respective dogs were assistance dogs within the meaning of the Act – where respondents refused to allow applicants to bring their assistance dogs inside their grocery store other than on a lead and gave directive that the dogs be kept on a lead whilst instore – where respondents determined to and did prohibit or ban the applicants from entering the store indefinitely when they failed to abide directive – whether respondent’s treatment of the applicants constituted direct discrimination and indirect discrimination – whether the same conduct can amount to both “direct discrimination” and “indirect discrimination” under the Act

Anti-Discrimination Act1991 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 46, s 106, s 166, s 174A, s 174C, s 204, s 205, s 206, s 208, s 209, Schedule 1

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), s 9 s23
Food Act 2006 (Qld), s 8, s 13
Food Standards Code – Standard 3.2.2

Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act2009 (Qld), Schedule 4

Australia Iron and Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46
Bell v iiNET Ltd [2017] QCAT 114
Catholic Education Office v Clarke (2004) 138 FCR 121
Commonwealth v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1995) 63 FCR 74
Commonwealth Bank v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) 80 FCR 78
Forest v Queensland Health (2007) 161 FCR 152
Hurst v Queensland (2006) 151 FCR 562
JM v QFG [2000] 1 Qd R 373
Klein v Sporting Shooters Association of Australia (Qld) Inc [2025] FedCFamC2G 246
Krysiak v Public Transport Authority [2016] WASC 258
Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 301
Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines[2015] FCAFC 130
New South Wales v Amery (2006) 230 CLR 174
Nojin v Commonwealth of Australia [2011] FCA 1066
O'Callaghan v Loder (1994) EOC 92-024
Qantas Airways limited v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537
Queensland v Forest[2008] FCAFC 96
Reurich v Club Jervis Bay Ltd[2018] FCA 1220
Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 420

Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles (1989) 23 FCR 251

Sheehan v…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hope v Danianarnie Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2025] QCAT 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Hope v Danianarnie Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the applicants, Mr and Mrs Hope, and the respondents, Danianarnie Pty Ltd, concerning alleged discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The applicants, both of whom have various impairments, were banned from a grocery store operated by the respondents after they were asked to keep their assistance dogs on a leash while inside the store. The applicants argued that the store's refusal to allow their assistance dogs inside without a leash constituted both direct and indirect discrimination under the Act. The central legal issues in the case revolved around whether the respondents' conduct constituted direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, and whether the same conduct could amount to both forms of discrimination under the Act.

The court examined the definitions of direct and indirect discrimination under the Act, concluding that direct discrimination occurs when an individual is treated less favourably than another person in similar circumstances due to a protected attribute, such as disability. Indirect discrimination involves applying a requirement or condition that appears neutral but places the individual at a disadvantage due to a protected attribute. The court found that the store's requirement for the applicants to keep their dogs on a leash was a neutral policy, but its application to the applicants due to their disabilities constituted indirect discrimination. However, the court held that the store's refusal to allow the dogs inside without a leash, coupled with the subsequent indefinite ban on the applicants, did not amount to direct discrimination, as the policy was not applied selectively against the applicants but rather was uniformly enforced. Therefore, the conduct did not constitute both direct and indirect discrimination under the Act.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of distinguishing between direct and indirect discrimination and the need for a clear understanding of the definitions under the Act. The court concluded that while the store's conduct constituted indirect discrimination, it did not amount to direct discrimination. Consequently, the applications were dismissed, and the parties were granted liberty to apply for any other consequential orders if necessary.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applications are dismissed.

2. The parties have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

Background

Background to the litigation

I do not accept that that the First Respondent was legally obliged to ensure that any dogs that entered its premises were “assistance animals” as defined in the DD Act and that failure to do so by the First Respondent would have been an offence but for reasons that will become apparent, had I concluded otherwise, it would not have affected the outcome.The factual background to the banning of the applicants from the store It is common ground on 21 August 2022; the respondents implemented a condition on Mr and Mrs Hope that they had to have their dogs on a leash while attending the inside of the store. At the time this was only communicated by the respondents to Mrs Hope but it is also not disputed, that prior to 1 September 2022, Mr Hope became aware of the condition when his wife told him of it. It was the contravention of this condition that is said to have led to them being banned. The evidence of Ms Irvine whom I generally found to be an honest and reliable witness, is that in February 2020 she served Mrs Hope at the store and assisted her to the car with her groceries. Mrs Hope was on her own and without a dog. She was polite and grateful for the assistance. She entered the store on multiple occasions with no dog. Ms Irvine’s first encounter with both Mr and Mrs Hope was in approximately early March 2020 when she was called by staff to the front service desk because the front-end supervisor, Debra Wright, was having some sort of dispute with Mr and Mrs Hope who were complaining that Ms Wright was asking for proof of Mr Hope that his dog was an assistance dog. Mr Hope was saying she had no right to do so and his dog was an assistance dog. Then Mrs Hope entered into the discussion saying they had no right to ask for their personal information and she was discriminating against them. Ms Irvine insisted she had the right to ask and then Mr Hope said he wasn't under Guide Dogs Australia and he was operating under F.E.T.C.H assistance dogs. Mr and Mrs Hope again entered the store later in around March 2020 with one dog, which was on lead. The following week they again entered the store with one dog on lead, and this was the first time Ms Irvine asked for ID cards after researching what their rights were. After that, Mrs Hope would bring a dog on lead into the store without Mr Hope. In approximately April 2020, Ms Irvine requested the ID cards for the assistance dogs from the Hopes. Ms Irvine had been advised by Assistance Dogs Associations that the business was within their legal rights to request that evidence. Over time, when similar requests were made, they were met with refusals with the Hopes informing her that they were not required to do so and that they would sue her if she did. I find that in approximately August 2020, Mr and Mrs Hope entered the store this time with two dogs, both on leads. Ms Irvine was concerned because she thought after observation that one dog was untrained because of its behaviour in seeming to be distracted and paying more attention to people walking by rather than on its handler. Ms Irvine asked on several occasions for ID for the Hopes and their dogs, but were met with refusals.

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.