Morrow v Tattsbet Limited

In *Morrow v Tattsbet Limited*, the applicant, Mr Morrow, sought to challenge a decision by Tattsbet Limited to refuse his application for a betting account. The dispute concerned whether Tattsbet's refusal was unlawful under the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977* (NSW) and the *Australian Consumer Law* (ACL). The matter was heard in the District Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether Tattsbet's refusal to grant Mr Morrow a betting account constituted unlawful discrimination on the grounds of his past gambling addiction, and whether this refusal was an unfair practice under the ACL. Mr Morrow contended that his past gambling addiction was a disability, and that Tattsbet's refusal was based on this disability, thereby contravening anti-discrimination legislation. He also argued that the refusal was unfair and misleading under consumer protection laws.

Judge Jarrett considered the definition of "disability" under the *Anti-Discrimination Act 1977* (NSW), which includes a past impairment that has been overcome. The court found that while Mr Morrow had a history of gambling addiction, there was insufficient evidence to establish that this constituted a "disability" as defined by the Act at the time of the refusal. Furthermore, the court determined that Tattsbet's refusal was based on its responsible gambling policies and a legitimate commercial decision to manage risk, rather than on any discriminatory ground. Regarding the ACL, the court found no evidence of misleading or deceptive conduct or any other unfair practice by Tattsbet.

The court therefore dismissed Mr Morrow's application.