Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd - [2022] QCAT 301

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd [2022] QCAT 301

PARTIES:

RAYMOND MATTHEWS

(applicant)

v

WOOMBYE PUB TRADING PTY LTD

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL016-21

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

2 August 2022

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2022

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Lumb

ORDERS:

1.       Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd is ordered to pay to Raymond Matthews, within 28 days of the date of these orders, the amount of $8,000.00 as compensation for the loss or damage caused by Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd’s contravention of s 46 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

2.       Any party seeking an order for costs must file with the Tribunal, and give to the other party a copy of, written submissions as to costs, no longer than five (5) pages, within 14 days of the date of these orders.

3.       If an application for costs is made pursuant to order number 2:

(i)      the other party must file with the Tribunal, and give to the other party a copy of, written submissions in reply, no longer than five (5) pages, within 14 days of receipt of the written submissions; and

(ii)    the application will be determined on the papers and without an oral hearing;

4.       If no application for costs is made pursuant to order number 2, there shall be no order as to costs of the proceeding.

CATCHWORDS:

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION LEGISLATION – DIRECT DISCRIMINATION – INDIRECT DISCRIMINATION – where applicant had an impairment within the meaning of the Anti‑Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – whether applicant’s dog was an assistance dog within the meaning of the Act – where respondent refused to allow applicant to bring his dog inside his local pub – where respondent considered that a Translink Animal Assistance Pass was insufficient to permit applicant’s dog inside the pub – whether respondent’s treatment of the applicant constituted direct discrimination – where respondent found to have contravened s 46 of the Act – whether the same conduct can amount to both “direct discrimination” and “indirect discrimination” under the Act

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 32D
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 7, s 8, s 9, s 10, s 11, s 46, s 106, s 166, s 174A, s 174C, s 204, s 205, s 206, s 208, s 209, Schedule 1
Guide, Hearing and Assistance Dogs Act 2009 (Qld), Schedule 4
Liquor Act 1992 (Qld), s 142ZZB
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 58, s 59

Jackson v Ocean Blue Queensland Pty Ltd & Ors [2020] QCAT 23
Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87
Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 130
Peter Williamson Pty Ltd v Capitol Motors Ltd (1982) 61 FLR 257
Reurich v Club Jervis Bay Ltd (2018) 360 ALR 296, [2018] FCA 1220
Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] 256 FCR 247
Woodforth v State of Queensland [2018] 1 Qd R 289
Wotton v Queensland (No 5)(2016) 352…

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 Matthews v Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd 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] QCAT 301
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal, Raymond Matthews applied against Woombye Pub Trading Pty Ltd, the operator of a local pub, for alleged discrimination in contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (ADA). Matthews claimed that he suffered from impairment, in particular depression and anxiety, and relied on an assistance dog, Kooy2, which he wished to bring inside the Pub with him. The Pub's management refused entry to Kooy2 on various occasions, and Matthews was eventually banned from the Pub for one month. Matthews sought compensation, an apology, and orders for awareness training and access to the Pub. The Pub argued that its conduct was justified by the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld). The Tribunal found that the Pub discriminated against Matthews on the basis of his impairment in contravention of s 46 of the ADA and awarded Matthews $8,000.00 in compensation. The Tribunal declined to make an order for an apology or further orders for awareness training or access to the Pub. The Tribunal also found that the Pub was not entitled to rely on the Liquor Act as an exemption from the ADA.

Orders