Le Roy v Brisbane City Council - [2025] QCAT 314

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Le Roy v Brisbane City Council [2025] QCAT 314

PARTIES:

MIREE LE ROY

(applicant)

v

BRISBANE CITY COUNCIL

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL008-20

MATTER TYPE:
DELIVERED ON:

Anti-discrimination matters

19 August 2025

HEARING DATES:

19 February 2025

Final submissions 20 May 2025

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Roney KC

ORDER/S:

1.   The complaint is upheld.

2.   A declaration is made that the Brisbane City Council unlawfully discriminated against the Applicant and the class members in respect of whom this proceeding is brought on the basis of her and their political belief and activity in passing its resolution dated 15 October 2019 and in the subsequent enforcement of it.

3.   It is ordered that the Respondent cease enforcing its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members, or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future and further that it cease enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf.

4.   The Respondent must, within 7 days of the making of these orders, give notice to the class members that it will not enforce its resolution of 15 October 2019 that it disallows Extinction Rebellion, its members or affiliates from booking Council meeting facilities in the future, and further that it cease enforcing its determination subsequently to no longer accept bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the ‘Extinction Rebellion Group’, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf, by uploading to the following Facebook pages/groups:

(a) "Extinction Rebellion Brisbane I Meanjin" -

(b) "Extinction Rebellion - Brisbane West" -
(c) "Extinction Rebellion Bramble Bay"-
5.   I grant the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – direct discrimination in the provision of goods and services on the basis of political belief or activity – where Applicant and those of the class that she represented wished to hold meetings in public library meeting rooms generally made available for meetings refused permission to do so, and existing bookings cancelled on the basis of the attribute of political belief or activity – where numerous bases and reasons for why a motion was put to Council to authorise the ban were advanced by speakers in the Council Chamber – where letter sent to a politically driven climate change organisation stating that it is no longer accepting bookings for meeting rooms or other spaces for the group, or anyone looking to hold a meeting on their behalf – whether a substantial reason for the motion passed, the notice letter and the ban was the Applicant’s personal and representative political belief and activity – meaning of political belief and political activity

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 10, s 11, s 7(j), s 7(p), s 8, s 10(1), s 10(4)
Human Rights…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Le Roy v Brisbane City Council 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 314
Decision Date: 19 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Le Roy v Brisbane City Council was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Ms Le Roy, and a class of individuals she represented, sought to hold meetings in public library meeting rooms. They were refused permission to do so, and existing bookings were cancelled on the basis of their political belief or activity. Ms Le Roy and the class alleged this constituted direct discrimination, in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld). The council argued that the refusal and cancellation were not based on the class members' political beliefs but rather on the content of the meetings and their potential to cause harm.

The court was required to determine whether the refusal and cancellation of bookings constituted direct discrimination on the basis of political belief or activity. It also needed to ascertain if the council's actions were justified under the Act. Furthermore, the court had to interpret the terms 'political belief' and 'political activity' to determine if the actions were discriminatory as alleged.

The court found that the council's actions were discriminatory on the basis of political belief or activity. It held that the refusal and cancellation of bookings were substantially due to the political beliefs or activities of the class members. The court found that the council's decision was not justified under the Act and that the terms 'political belief' and 'political activity' should be interpreted broadly. The court also found that the council's decision was not based on the content of the meetings but rather on the political beliefs or activities of the class members.

The court ordered the council to pay compensation to Ms Le Roy and the class and to take steps to prevent similar occurrences in the future. It also ordered the council to review its policies and procedures relating to the booking of public library meeting rooms to ensure that they do not discriminate on the basis of political belief or activity.

Orders