McMAHON and NANNUP TIMBER PROCESSING PTY LTD [2015] WASAT 125
| STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL | Citation No: | [2015] WASAT 125 | |
| EQUAL OPPORTUNITY ACT 1984 (WA) | |||
| Case No: | EOA:19/2014 | 28, 29 AND 30 JULY 2015 | |
| Coram: | MR P McNAB (SENIOR MEMBER) | 6/11/15 | |
| 29 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Complaints dismissed | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | DAMIEN McMAHON NANNUP TIMBER PROCESSING PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Discrimination Equal Opportunity Direct discrimination Impairment Accommodation Victimisation Complainant residing in employer's accommodation close to timber mill Complainant injured at work Back injury Rent subsidised by respondent who was both lessor and employer Rent and other charges increased by lessor Company policy of phasing out subsidies to lessees Complainant the first lessee to suffer significant increase in rent Complainant threatened with eviction Other incidents between tenant and lessor including attempts to restrict water supply Alleged detriment suffered by complainant Whether lessor's conduct in relation to accommodation charges and associated acts done 'on the ground of' impairment Whether causative link established Intention and extent of knowledge of injury by respondent Burden of proof Circumstantial evidence Complainant alleging that differential treatment followed medical events related to his injury Whether correlation sufficient to prove cause Complainant alleging that there was 'no other reason' for differential treatment of him Complaints dismissed Applicant failed to prove relevant acts were discrimination against him on the ground of his impairment Observations on whether poor management practices prove discrimination Victimisation complaint dismissed for lack of proof and as lacking in substance |
Legislation: | Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 4, s 62(C), s 66(A)(1), s 66A(1)(a), s 67, s 89, s 90, s 93(1) |
Case References: | Acklin v Anti Discrimination Commissioner and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education [2008] NTMC 30 Clayton and Australia Post [1998] VADT 23 Edoo v Minister for Health [2010] WASAT 74; (2010) 72 SR (WA) 16 Gounder v Allmand [2007] VCAT 1898; (2007) EOC ¶93-480 IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 Kovac and Australian Croatian Club Ltd [2014] ACAT 41 Laurent v Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254; (2009) 68 SR (WA) 165 McMah v Simon Blackwood (Workers' Compensation Regulator) and BHP Billiton Coal Pty Ltd [2015] ICQ 9 Monash University v Kapoor [1999] VSC 463 Sanzana and Director General, Disability Services Commission [2011] WASAT 208 Sellen and TNT Australia Pty Ltd [2015] SAEOT 6 Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) [2002] FCAFC 196; (2002) 115 IR 91 Soelberg (formerly van Droffelaar) and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305 Summerville and Department of Education [2006] WASAT 368 University of Ballarat v Bridges [1995] 2 VR 418 Winter and Commissioner of Western Australian Police Service [2006] WASAT 87 Zangari v St John Ambulance Service [2010] WASAT 6; (2010) 70 SR (WA) 1 |
Orders | The applications in proceedings SAT 19/2014 McMahon and Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd and SAT 20/2014 McMahon and Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd are dismissed. |
Summary | Mr Damien McMahon worked for Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd (NTP).… |
Continue reading McMAHON and NANNUP TIMBER PROCESSING PTY LTD
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- McMAHON and NANNUP TIMBER PROCESSING PTY LTD [2015] WASAT 125
- Case
- [2015] WASAT 125
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the matter of McMahon and Nannup Timber Processing Pty Ltd, the applicant sought relief on the grounds of discrimination related to equal opportunity. The applicant, who resided in accommodation provided by the respondent close to a timber mill, suffered a back injury at work. The respondent, who was both the lessor and employer, had been subsidising the applicant's rent. Upon the injury, the respondent implemented a company policy to phase out subsidies to lessees. The applicant experienced a significant increase in rent and other charges, and was threatened with eviction, alongside other detrimental actions such as attempts to restrict the water supply. The applicant contended that these actions were discriminatory, stemming from his impairment.
The court was tasked with determining whether the lessor's actions regarding the accommodation charges, and associated acts, were discriminatory on the ground of the applicant's impairment. The court examined the burden of proof and the need for a causative link between the alleged discrimination and the applicant's impairment. It considered the extent of the respondent's knowledge of the injury and whether the applicant had proven that the differential treatment was solely due to his impairment. Additionally, the court assessed the applicant's claim that there was no other reason for the differential treatment.
After considering the evidence, the court found that the applicant had not successfully demonstrated that the relevant acts were discriminatory against him on the ground of his impairment. The court also dismissed the applicant's claim of victimisation due to a lack of proof and because the claim lacked substance. The court's reasoning was based on the insufficient evidence to establish a direct link between the respondent's actions and the applicant's impairment. The complaints were therefore dismissed.
In light of the court's findings, the respondent's complaints were dismissed, and no further orders were made. The applicant's claims of discrimination and victimisation were not substantiated by the evidence presented.
The court was tasked with determining whether the lessor's actions regarding the accommodation charges, and associated acts, were discriminatory on the ground of the applicant's impairment. The court examined the burden of proof and the need for a causative link between the alleged discrimination and the applicant's impairment. It considered the extent of the respondent's knowledge of the injury and whether the applicant had proven that the differential treatment was solely due to his impairment. Additionally, the court assessed the applicant's claim that there was no other reason for the differential treatment.
After considering the evidence, the court found that the applicant had not successfully demonstrated that the relevant acts were discriminatory against him on the ground of his impairment. The court also dismissed the applicant's claim of victimisation due to a lack of proof and because the claim lacked substance. The court's reasoning was based on the insufficient evidence to establish a direct link between the respondent's actions and the applicant's impairment. The complaints were therefore dismissed.
In light of the court's findings, the respondent's complaints were dismissed, and no further orders were made. The applicant's claims of discrimination and victimisation were not substantiated by the evidence presented.
Orders
Orders of the court
Complaints dismissed
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.