Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors - [2022] HCATrans 75

[2022] HCATrans 075

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Melbourne No M77 of 2021

B e t w e e n -
GAYE LUCK
Plaintiff
and
BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED
First Defendant
OFFICEWORKS LIMITED
Second Defendant
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Third Defendant
STATE OF VICTORIA
Fourth Defendant

GLEESON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON TUESDAY, 19 APRIL 2022, AT 2.15 PM

____________________

HER HONOUR: In this matter my orders are as follows:

1.Grant leave to the plaintiff to file an amended writ of summons in the form of the draft amended writ of summons annexed to the plaintiff’s affidavit filed 27 January 2022.
2.The amended application be dismissed.
3.The proceeding be summarily dismissed.
4.The plaintiff pay the first, second and third defendants’ costs of the proceeding.
5.Otherwise, there be no order as to costs.

I publish my reasons. I direct that those reasons be incorporated into the transcript.

Outline of plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff commenced this proceeding by writ of summons filed on 23 November 2021. Her case, as disclosed by the documents filed to date, is principally a complaint of discrimination contrary to the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (“DD Act”). The main factual basis of the complaint is that the plaintiff was allegedly denied entry to the premises of the first defendant, Bunnings Group Limited (“Bunnings”), and the second defendant, Officeworks Limited (“Officeworks”), on 20 November 2021 in the State of Victoria (“Victoria”) because she did not have proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or acceptable evidence of a medical exemption from vaccination. On that date, there were in force in Victoria directions made under the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008 (Vic) that prohibited persons from entering retail premises in Victoria who did not have proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or acceptable evidence of a medical exemption from vaccination. In addition to declaratory relief and damages sought against Bunnings and Officeworks, the plaintiff also sought declarations, injunctions and damages against the third defendant, the Commonwealth of Australia (“Commonwealth”), and the fourth defendant, Victoria.

Although not clearly stated in documents filed by the plaintiff, her case extends to other occasions since 20 November 2021 when the plaintiff was unable to attend venues and engage in activities because she did not have proof of vaccination against COVID-19 or acceptable evidence of a medical exemption from vaccination.

As the plaintiff explained her case to the Court on 14 April 2022, the alleged disability, the disease of COVID-19, is imputed to the entire population of Australia. The universal nature of the alleged disability creates conceptual difficulties for the plaintiff’s case because the problem of disability discrimination is centrally concerned with unequal treatment resulting from a disability not shared with the general population.

Relief sought at 14 April 2022 hearing

On 16 December 2021, the plaintiff filed an application seeking directions in respect of the management of the proceeding, injunctive relief and other orders. On 22 December…

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 Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors 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: [2022] HCATrans 75
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors*, the applicant, Mr. Luck, brought proceedings against Bunnings Group Limited and two of its employees, alleging that he had been unlawfully detained and assaulted by the respondents. The dispute arose from an incident at a Bunnings store where Mr. Luck was detained by security personnel on suspicion of shoplifting. The matter came before Gleeson J in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the detention of Mr. Luck by the respondents constituted an unlawful arrest or false imprisonment, and whether the force used during the apprehension amounted to an assault. The court was required to consider the legal justification for the detention, including the powers of store security personnel to detain individuals suspected of criminal activity, and the reasonableness of the force employed in the circumstances.

Gleeson J applied the principles of common law relating to false imprisonment and assault. The court considered the requirements for lawful detention, which generally necessitate reasonable suspicion that a person has committed or is about to commit a relevant offence. The judge also examined the concept of reasonable force, noting that the degree of force used must be proportionate to the circumstances and necessary to effect the apprehension or prevent escape. The court found that the respondents had not established a lawful basis for the detention and that the force used was excessive, thereby constituting false imprisonment and assault.

The court ordered that the respondents pay damages to Mr. Luck for the unlawful detention and assault.

Orders