Lambert v State of Victoria

In the case of Lambert v State of Victoria, the applicant brought a claim against the State of Victoria, alleging discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The applicant, Lambert, claimed that the State failed to apply and implement policies, procedures, and guidelines relating to students with disabilities, resulting in less favourable treatment on the basis of her disability. The State moved to strike out the applicant’s statement of claim, arguing that the allegations did not properly plead a cause of action under the Act.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's allegations of discrimination were properly pleaded under the Act. The State argued that the court could not enforce the State's policies, as established in previous cases such as Walker v State of Victoria. Additionally, the State contended that the less favourable treatment claim was flawed because many of the policies in question did not apply to students without disabilities. The court had to assess whether the applicant's statement of claim sufficiently alleged a breach of the Act and whether the applicant was entitled to an opportunity to amend her pleadings.

The court held that while the applicant’s statement of claim contained some relevant allegations, it did not sufficiently plead a cause of action under the Act. The court found that the applicant’s reliance on the State's policies was misplaced, as the Act does not empower the court to enforce such policies. The court further noted that the applicant's claim of less favourable treatment was not properly framed, as it did not adequately compare the treatment of the applicant to that of a comparator without disabilities. However, the court granted the applicant leave to replead, allowing her to amend her statement of claim to better align with the requirements of the Act.

The court struck out the applicant's statement of claim but granted leave to replead, with the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application. The court's decision highlights the importance of properly pleading claims under the Disability Discrimination Act and the limitations on the enforcement of State policies in such claims.