Macras v Victoria Police - [2018] FCCA 1908

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MACRAS v VICTORIA POLICE

[2018] FCCA 1908

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LAW – Disability Discrimination – where Applicant suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder – where Applicant claims that his motor vehicle is a disability aid – whether Applicant suffered discrimination during police interception on 5 November 2015 and secondary oral fluid test – where charges were withdrawn as a result of a procedural error – whether direct discrimination on the basis of Applicant’s disability – whether direct discrimination on the basis of Applicant’s disability aid – whether indirect discrimination on the basis of Applicant’s disability – whether harassment – whether victimisation – whether the Respondents, when intercepting the Applicant, were providing a service in respect of the Disability Discrimination Act 1999 (Cth) (‘DDA’) – whether the Applicant treated less favourably than the Respondent would have treated a person without the Applicant’s disability in similar circumstances – where Applicant claims $24,692,335.55 in damages – no causal connection (causal nexus) established between Applicant’s disability and Respondents’ actions – Applicant fails to demonstrate discrimination within the terms of the DDA.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Where Respondent applies for matter to be summarily dismissed pursuant to s.17A(2) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) or r.13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) – where Applicant has no reasonable prospect of success – where defects in Applicant’s claims will not be cured by amendment or repleading – where Applicant’s approach to litigation has been spurious – where Applicant has filed and served 11 statements of claim – matter summarily dismissed without leave to replead – subpoenas issued set aside.

Legislation:

Australia Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s.46PO
Disability Discrimination Act 1999 (Cth), ss.5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 39, 40, 47
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) s.17A
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth) r.13.10
Magistrate’s Court Act 1989 (Vic) s.14
Road Safety Rules 2009 (Vic) r.17

Cases cited:

Adnunat Pty Ltd v ITW Constructions Systems Australia Pty Ltd [2009] FCA 449

Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 817

Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1531

George Fletcher (Trustee) [2010] FCAFC 53

J & A Vaughan Super Pty Ltd (Trustee) v Becton Property Group Limited [2014] FCA 581

Luck v University of Southern Queensland [2014] FCAFC 135

Penhall-Jones v New South Wales [2007] FCA 925

Purvis v State of New South Wales(Department of Education) [2003] HCA 62

Robinson v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force [2012] FCA 770

Qualify Me Pty Ltd v Get Qualified Australia Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 192
Unpaid Systems Ltd v Telstra Corporation Limited [2016] FCAFC 158

Applicant:

STEPHEN MACRAS

Respondent:

VICTORIA POLICE

File Number:

MLG 851 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge McNab

Hearing date:

10 April 2018

Date of Last Submission:

10 April 2018

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

26 July 2018

REPRESENTATION

The Applicant:

Appeared in person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Tran

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Victorian…

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 Macras v Victoria Police 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: [2018] FCCA 1908
Decision Date: 26 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr Macras, who suffers from Autism Spectrum Disorder, brought proceedings against Victoria Police. He alleged that he had been discriminated against on the basis of his disability and his motor vehicle, which he claimed was a disability aid, during a police interception and secondary oral fluid test on 5 November 2015. The applicant sought damages in the sum of $24,692,335.55. Victoria Police applied for the matter to be summarily dismissed.

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia was required to determine whether Victoria Police had engaged in direct or indirect discrimination, harassment, or victimisation against the applicant under the *Disability Discrimination Act 1999* (Cth). Specifically, the court had to consider whether the police, in intercepting the applicant and conducting the test, were providing a service within the meaning of the Act, and whether the applicant had been treated less favourably than a person without his disability would have been in similar circumstances. The court also had to consider Victoria Police's application for summary dismissal, including whether the applicant had any reasonable prospect of success and if the defects in his claims could be cured by amendment.

Judge McNab found that the applicant had failed to establish a causal connection between his disability and the actions of Victoria Police, which was a necessary element for demonstrating discrimination under the *Disability Discrimination Act 1999* (Cth). The court concluded that the applicant had no reasonable prospect of success and that the defects in his claims were unlikely to be cured by amendment or repleading, noting the applicant's history of filing multiple statements of claim. The court also observed that the applicant's approach to litigation appeared spurious.

Consequently, the court summarily dismissed the applicant's claims without granting leave to replead and set aside any subpoenas that had been issued.

Orders