Owen v Serendipity (WA) Pty Ltd t/as Advanced Personnel Management

The applicant, Owen, sought leave to commence proceedings for alleged unlawful discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) against Serendipity (WA) Pty Ltd t/as Advanced Personnel Management (APM). The application followed the termination of a complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) on the basis that it was misconceived or lacking substance. The court had to decide whether to grant leave to Owen to proceed with his claim despite the AHRC’s termination of his complaint. The primary issue was whether Owen's application was arguable and not fanciful.

The court found that Owen's complaint about his job search requirements did not adequately demonstrate a causal connection between his disability and the treatment he received, nor did it show that he was treated less favourably than a person without a disability in similar circumstances. The court highlighted that the Disability Discrimination Act does not specifically address discrimination related to caregiving, and it was unclear how Owen's association with a person with a disability could apply to his complaint. Additionally, the court noted that the requirement for Owen to contact 12 employers per month appeared to be tailored to his individual circumstances, which was a consideration under the Guidelines. The court concluded that Owen had not provided sufficient information to support a claim of direct or indirect disability discrimination.

Accordingly, the court refused Owen's application for leave to commence the proceeding, finding that the application was not arguable and was therefore lacking in substance. The court ordered that unless the respondent applied for its costs within 10 days, no order as to costs would be made. If the respondent applied for its costs, the parties were to file and serve submissions within 14 days of that compliance, and the application would be determined on the papers.