Krysiak v Public Transport Authority [No 2]

The case of Krysiak v Public Transport Authority [No 2] involved Mrs Krysiak, a disabled elderly woman with mobility issues, who brought a complaint to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) against the Public Transport Authority (PTA), alleging indirect discrimination on the grounds of age and impairment. Mrs Krysiak's complaint was based on the PTA's alteration of the route of bus number 15, which resulted in the nearest bus stop to her home being further away. Mrs Krysiak contended that this change constituted indirect discrimination under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA). The tribunal dismissed the complaint, and Mrs Krysiak sought leave to appeal this decision.

The legal issues in the appeal were primarily centered on whether the alteration of the bus route constituted a 'requirement or condition' as defined in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), and if the tribunal had the jurisdiction and power to strike out the application following the referral of the complaint by the Equal Opportunity Commissioner. The central question was whether the change in the bus route, which made it more difficult for Mrs Krysiak to access public transport, constituted a discriminatory 'requirement or condition' under the Act.

The tribunal found that the alteration of the bus route did not constitute a 'requirement or condition' under the Act. This conclusion was based on the tribunal's interpretation of the Act and its comparison to similar provisions in the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (Vic), as discussed in the High Court case of Waters v Public Transport Corporation. The tribunal determined that the change in the bus route did not impose a new requirement or condition on passengers, but merely altered the location of the bus stop, which did not inherently discriminate against Mrs Krysiak based on her age or impairment. The tribunal also upheld its jurisdiction and power to strike out the application, finding no error in its decision-making process.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The tribunal's decision was upheld, and no substantial injustice resulted from the refusal of leave to appeal. The tribunal's interpretation of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) and its comparison to relevant High Court jurisprudence provided a clear basis for its decision.