Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited (EOD)

Case [2000] NSWADTAP 12


Appeal Panel

CITATION: Moxon -v- Westbus Pty Limited (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 12
PARTIES:

APPELLANT
John Moxon

RESPONDENT
Westbus Pty Limited
FILE NUMBER: 999027
HEARING DATES: 20/04/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/20/2000
DATE OF DECISION:
07/25/2000
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Principal matter
BEFORE: Hennessy N (Deputy President); Rice S - Judicial Member; Bullock S - Member
CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - no evidence - relevant/irrelevant considerations - statutory interpretation
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 981001
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 09/21/1999
LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED: Francey & Meeuwissen v Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd (1977) EOC 92-903
Cooper v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1999] FCA 180
Scott and Disabled Peoples International v Telstra Corporation Limited (1995) EOC
Francey & Ors v Hilton Hotels of Australia Ltd [1997] HREOCA 56
Scott and Bernadette Finney v The Hills Grammar School [1999] HREOCA 14
Hills Grammar School v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [2000] FCA 65
Rees v Australian Agency for International Development [1999] HREOCA 12
Druett v State of New South Wales
Dennis Willcox Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1988) 79 ALR 267
Sullivan v. Department of Transport (1978) 20 ALR 323
Pettitt v. Dunkley (1971) 1 NSWLR 376
The Queen v Toohey; Ex parte Meneling Station Pty Ltd (1982) 158 CLR
Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd & Ors v National Health & Medical Research Council & Ors (1996) 71 FCR
Department of Defence v Jodette Margaret Fox [1997] 3 FCA
Absolon v NSW TAFE [1999] NSWCA 311
Public Service Board of New South Wales v. Osmond (1985-1986) 159 CLR
Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty. Limited (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
R. v. Associated Northern Collieries (1910) 11 CLR 738
Repatriation Commission v. O'Brien (1984-1985) 155 CLR
Repatriation Commission v Norman Kenneth Boyle [1997] 1269 FCA
Haswell v Department of School Education [1999] NSWSC 1271
Waters v Public Transport Corporation 1991 EOC
REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
J Griffiths, barrister
RESPONDENT
C Ronalds, barrister
ORDERS: 1. The appeal is upheld ; 2. The decision of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999, that Westbus has made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship under s 49M(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, is set aside ; 3. This aspect of the case is remitted to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted ; 4. No order as to costs.

Introduction

1 This is an appeal by Mr Moxon from a decision of the Equal Opportunity Division of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999. The Tribunal’s decision was that Mr Moxon’s complaint of disability discrimination against Westbus Pty Limited (Westbus) be dismissed.

      History of the proceedings

2 On 5 April 1997 Mr Moxon, who is President of the Physical Disability Council of New South Wales, lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board. Mr Moxon uses a wheel chair. He lives in Winston Hills where Westbus is the only supplier of public transport. His complaint relates to bus routes 600, 606 and 607. Mr…

Continue reading Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited (EOD)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited (EOD) [2000] NSWADTAP 12
Case
[2000] NSWADTAP 12
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Moxon v Westbus Pty Limited was a case that came before the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary dispute involved the defendant, Westbus Pty Limited, and the plaintiff, Moxon, in the context of an employment dispute. The case revolved around the interpretation and application of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 and the associated legal principles surrounding the defence of unjustifiable hardship under section 49M(2) of the Act.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the Tribunal had provided adequate reasons for its decision, if there was any evidence to support the decision, and whether the Tribunal had considered relevant and irrelevant factors in its reasoning. The court was also tasked with determining if the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the statutory provisions and applied them appropriately in the circumstances of the case.

The court found that the Tribunal had not provided sufficient reasons for its decision, which was a fundamental requirement for any administrative decision-making process. The court further determined that there was no evidence to support the Tribunal's conclusion that Westbus had made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship. Additionally, the court found that the Tribunal had considered irrelevant factors in its reasoning and had failed to consider relevant factors. Consequently, the court held that the decision of the Tribunal was flawed and set it aside. The appeal was upheld, and the matter was remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration and re-determination. No order was made regarding costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is upheld ; 2. The decision of the Tribunal made on 21 September 1999, that Westbus has made out the defence of unjustifiable hardship under s 49M(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, is set aside ; 3. This aspect of the case is remitted to be heard and decided again by the Tribunal as originally or similarly constituted ; 4. No order as to costs.

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.