Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd

In the case of Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd, the appellant, Mr Mulligan, sought to establish whether the respondent, Virgin Australia Airlines, had unlawfully discriminated against him under sections 24 and 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (DDA). Mr Mulligan claimed to require an assistance animal to accompany him due to his disabilities, specifically cerebral palsy affecting his vision and mobility. The dispute centred on the airline's refusal to allow his dog, Willow, to travel with him in the aircraft cabin. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia addressed several key legal issues, including whether the primary judge had erred in their interpretation of the relevant legislation and regulations.

The court examined whether the primary judge had misconstrued Regulation 256A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) (CARs) and whether the primary judge had correctly interpreted the DDA. Specifically, the court considered if the primary judge had erred in concluding that instruments made under Regulation 256A of the CARs were prescribed laws under section 47(2) of the DDA. Additionally, the court assessed whether the primary judge had misconstrued section 54A(5) of the DDA and whether the appellant's dog was "trained" for the purposes of section 9(2)(c) of the DDA. The court's reasoning involved a detailed examination of the statutory provisions and the relationship between the DDA and the CARs. The court found that the primary judge had indeed erred in their interpretation of the relevant laws, leading to an unlawful discrimination finding against the respondent.

The court concluded that Virgin Australia Airlines' conduct in refusing to allow Mr Mulligan to travel with his assistance animal in the cabin was unlawful discrimination under section 24 of the DDA. The court set aside the orders of the Federal Circuit Court and ordered Virgin Australia Airlines to pay damages to Mr Mulligan for the stress he suffered as a consequence of the airline's unlawful conduct, in the sum of $10,000 plus interest. Furthermore, the court ordered Virgin Australia Airlines to pay Mr Mulligan's costs of the proceeding below, the appeal, the amended notice of contention, and the amended cross-appeal. The court also declared that the respondent's conduct in refusing to allow the appellant to fly with his assistance animal in the cabin of its aircraft was unlawful discrimination under section 24 of the DDA.