King v Gosewisch

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

KING & ORS v GOSEWISCH & ORS [2008] FMCA 1221

HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – indirect discrimination – harassment.

Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ss.3, 4, 6, 24, 39, 40, 122

Clarke v Catholic Education Office (2003) 202 ALR 340
Rainsford v Victoria (2007) FCA 1059
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349

Applicant: SHEILA KING & ORS

Respondent: WILLIAM GOSEWISCH & ORS

File Number: BRG 458 of 2006

Judgment of: Baumann FM

Hearing dates: 13 & 14 August 2007

Delivered at: Brisbane

Delivered on: 29 August 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Shah

Solicitors for the Applicant: Murphy Schmidt

Counsel for the Respondent: Ms Anderson

Solicitors for the Respondent: McDuff and Daniel Lawyers

ORDERS

1. The Application be dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
BRISBANE

BRG 458 of 2006

SHEILA KING & ORS

Applicant

And

WILLIAM GOSEWISCH & ORS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

1. The Burrum Chamber of Commerce published an open invitation to the community to “Meet the Council Candidates” on 17 October 2005.  The meeting was to take place at the Burrum District Golf Club – in the relatively quite rural town of Howard.

2. As it turned out the events and meeting were anything but quiet.  These reasons relate to that evening, and the claim made by the Applicants (who have a physical disability) that they were unlawfully the subject of discrimination and harassment.  That claim is opposed by the Respondents who, at the time, were the office bearers of the Burrum Chamber of Commerce.

Evidence

1. The Court is aware it has been some time since the hearing and apologises for the delay.  In such circumstances it is useful to record the evidence given by the various witnesses relied upon by the parties in more detail than might otherwise be necessary.

2. The circumstances surrounding the events in question, including leading up to the meeting and thereafter, coupled with the age of some of the parties all contributed in my view, to some parts of the evidence being expressed from a sincerely held perspective – but where conflicts on factual matters exist.  Some are matters of importance in the disposition of this application and other facts are of less significance.  I did not form a view, that any witness was dishonest or sought consciously to mislead the Court.  As my reasons reveal, on some issues I prefer the evidence of one party over another.

Glenise Staff

1. Mrs Staff is a resident of the Hervey Bay area and says that for 35 years, her physical activities have been governed by severe physical impairments.  She is as a result acutely aware of inaccessible built environments and has for some years been an advocate for people with disabilities.

2. She became aware of an open public invitation from the Burrum Chambers of Commerce to attend a “Meet the Council Candidates” meeting on Monday 17 October 2005 to be held at the Burrum District Golf Club Clubhouse.  She had not attended that location previously.…