Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors - [2022] HCATrans 74

[2022] HCATrans 074

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 THURSDAY, 14 APRIL 2022, AT 10.30 AM

____________________

HER HONOUR: In accordance with the protocol for hearings by video connection, I will announce the appearances.

MS G. LUCK appears in person.

MR A.J. PURTON appears for the first and second defendants. (instructed by Corrs Chambers Westgarth)

MR C.J. TRAN appears for the third defendant. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)

MS F.I. GORDON appears for the fourth defendant. (instructed by Victorian Government Solicitor’s Office)

HER HONOUR: What I would like to do at the outset is to set an agenda because there are several matters arising for decision this morning. What I would first like to do is deal with various of the orders sought by Ms Luck. Ms Luck originally sought orders in an application for directions and other relief filed on 16 December 2021. Since then she has filed amendments to that application and what I would like to do is to deal with the application that is annexed to Ms Luck’s affidavit, filed 12 April 2022. What I would like to do first is to deal with the application for orders in that application, apart from the application for directions for the management of the hearing.

What I would next like to do is to deal with the first and second defendants’ application, the third defendant’s application and the fourth defendant’s application. Depending on the outcome of those, I propose to then come back to the application for directions for the management of the proceeding.

Ms Luck, are you content with the Court proceeding in that order?

MS LUCK: In the agenda you have just mentioned?

HER HONOUR: Yes.

MS LUCK: I have – because of the several amendments that I have made - do you mind if I sit or stand ‑ ‑ ‑

HER HONOUR: Whichever you prefer, Ms Luck.

MS LUCK: Sorry. I will sit for the moment, but I will probably want to stand afterwards because my back hurts. I have the four amended amendments, so you said 12 April, was it? Which one did you say you wanted to attend to - 12 January?

HER HONOUR: 12 April, which is the most recent one.

MS LUCK: Right. In that one my orders seek to – the orders made in the – I sought to have the orders made in respect of the first or – sorry, I am a bit confused. I have a lot of law here that I am sort of trying to get in together and, as you said, it is complicated, and I have to go through this. What I am…

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 74
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of New South Wales, Justice Gleeson considered a dispute between the applicant, Mr Luck, and the respondents, Bunnings Group Limited and others. Mr Luck alleged that he had been unlawfully discriminated against by Bunnings, claiming that his employment was terminated due to his disability. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Bunnings' actions constituted unlawful discrimination under the relevant anti-discrimination legislation.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Bunnings had unlawfully discriminated against Mr Luck on the grounds of his disability. This required the Court to determine whether Mr Luck's disability was a substantial reason for the termination of his employment and, if so, whether Bunnings had taken all reasonably practicable steps to accommodate his disability. The Court also had to consider the nature of the alleged discrimination, specifically whether it was direct or indirect.

Justice Gleeson's reasoning focused on the factual matrix surrounding Mr Luck's employment and termination. The Court examined the evidence presented by both parties regarding Mr Luck's condition, his capacity to perform his duties, and the steps taken by Bunnings to manage his employment. The legal principles applied included those found in the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth) and relevant case law concerning the employer's duty to accommodate employees with disabilities. The Court considered whether Bunnings' actions were reasonable in the circumstances, taking into account the impact on Mr Luck and the operational requirements of the business.

The Court found that Mr Luck had not established that his disability was the substantial reason for the termination of his employment. Consequently, the Court dismissed Mr Luck's application.

Orders