Loveday v Blacktown City Council

CITATION: Loveday -v- Blacktown City Council & ors [2004] NSWADT 60

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Sam Loveday
RESPONDENTS
1. Blactown City Council
2. Harness Racing New South Wales
3. Riverstone District Trotting Track Committee

FILE NUMBER: 021085

HEARING DATES: 14 & 15/08/2003; 17/11/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/17/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
03/26/2004

BEFORE: Needham J - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Member

APPLICATION: Disability Discrimination - Goods and Services

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Harness Racing New South Wales Act 1977

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Corrective Services -v- Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Walker -v- State of NSW, [2003] NSWADT 13

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENTS
1. & 3. - M Bonanno, solicitor
2. - D English, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. The applicant's complaint is dismissed; 2. Pursuant to s114 (1) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, no order as to costs.

REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction

1 Mr Sam Loveday, the applicant in these proceedings, complained to the Anti-Discrimination Board on 5 April 2001 alleging discrimination on the grounds of his disability. Mr Loveday suffers from retinitis pigmentosa, a condition which causes him “intense glare from daylight due to an abnormal interaction between the photoreceptors and the retina … His eye protection requires a broad brimmed hat … as he is unable to wear dark glasses because of his condition” (Ex G, letter 18 December 2002 from Professor Billson, Professor of Ophthalmology, to solicitors for Harness Racing New South Wales). He has had part of his iris removed for melanoma, and has “symptoms of intractable glare” (Ex B, letter Dr Max Conway, Department of Clinical Ophthalmology and Eye Health, University of Sydney, 7 November 2000).

2 The respondents to the complaint are:

a) Blacktown City Council (“the Council”) and the Riverstone District Trotting Track Committee (“the Committee”). The Committee is a Committee of the Council pursuant to s 355 of the Local Government Act , 1993, and the two parties were represented at the hearing by Mr Bonanno.
b) Harness Racing New South Wales, the governing body for pacing and trotting in New South Wales. Harness Racing New South Wales is a body corporate constituted by s 5(1) of the Harness Racing New South Wales Act 1977 and it was represented at the hearing by Mr English. Harness Racing New South Wales was referred to during the hearing, and will be referred to in this decision, as “the Authority”.

3 The Acting President of the Anti-Discrimination Board was unable to resolve the complaint and referred the matter to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal on 19 July 2002. The matter was heard over three days on 14 and 15 August 2003 and on 17 November 2003.
4 Mr Loveday’s complaint seeks to achieve his goal of being able to train horses as a stablehand. A stablehand needs to be licensed, and has been so required to be licensed since 1986/7. The Authority puts the need for a licence as being:

“to ensure appropriate (insurance) cover…

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Loveday v Blacktown City Council was heard by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal, which examined a complaint brought by the applicant, Loveday, against the respondent, Blacktown City Council, regarding alleged discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The applicant alleged that the Council had discriminated against her on the grounds of disability and age during a recruitment process for a position within the Council's employment.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Council had indeed discriminated against the applicant based on disability and age, and if so, whether such discrimination was unlawful under the Act. The Tribunal had to consider the definitions of disability and age discrimination as outlined in the legislation, along with the evidence presented regarding the recruitment process and the applicant's qualifications and experience.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal examined the evidence provided by both parties, including the recruitment process details, the applicant's qualifications, and the Council's justification for its decision. The Tribunal found that the Council had not acted in a discriminatory manner. It determined that the Council's decision to select another candidate was based on merit and not on the applicant's disability or age. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not established that the Council's actions constituted unlawful discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the applicant's complaint.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Loveday -v- Blacktown City Council & ors [2004] NSWADT 60
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Sam Loveday RESPONDENTS 1. Blactown City Council 2. Harness Racing New South Wales 3. Riverstone District Trotting Track Committee
FILE NUMBER:	021085
HEARING DATES:	14 & 15/08/2003; 17/11/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	11/17/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	03/26/2004
BEFORE:	Needham J - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Member
APPLICATION:	Disability Discrimination - Goods and Services
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Harness Racing New South Wales Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Corrective Services -v- Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Walker -v- State of NSW, [2003] NSWADT 13
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENTS 1. & 3. - M Bonanno, solicitor 2. - D English, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. The applicant's complaint is dismissed; 2. Pursuant to s114 (1) Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, no order as to costs.