Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd - [2025] FCA 420

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 420

File number: NSD 29 of 2024

Judgment of: RAPER J

Date of judgment: 30 April 2025

Catchwords: DISCRIMINATION LAW – where the applicant was barred, then repeatedly barred from access to premises (a shopping centre) – whether the applicant was directly or indirectly discriminated against by the first and second respondents by reason of his disability or having an assistance animal under s 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – whether the applicant was victimised, pursuant to ss 42 or 58A of the DDA, by reason of having made a complaint about the third respondent previously to the Australian Human Rights Commission and/or bringing proceedings – where the applicant claims that the respondents incited others pursuant to s 43 of the DDA – whether the Court has no jurisdiction with respect to s 42 criminal victimisation claim or s 43 criminal incitement claim – whether s 58A civil victimisation claim is established – application dismissed

Legislation:
Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Act 2022 (Cth) sch 7 item 12

Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 42, 43, 54A, 58A, 122, 123

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 94

Cases cited:
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (Siddiqui’s case) (1996) 68 FCR 46; 137 ALR 653

Bibawi v Australian Human Rights Commission [2021] FCA 1476

Georgiou v Spencer Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 22

Haar v Maldon Nominees Pty Ltd (t/a McDonalds) [2000] FMCA 5; 184 ALR 83

Hanson v Burston [2022] FCA 1234

Haraksin v Murrays Australia Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 217; 211 FCR 1

Ioannou v Commonwealth [2012] FCA 1228

KLK Investments Pty Ltd v Riley (1993) 10 WAR 523

Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines [2015] FCAFC 130; 254 FCR 207

Myers v Alfred Hospital [2023] FCA 833

O’Connor v Ross (No 1) [2002] FMCA 210

Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925

Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; 217 CLR 92

Queensland v Forest [2008] FCAFC 96; 168 FCR 532

Reurich v Club Jervis Bay Ltd [2018] FCA 1220; 360 ALR 296

Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) [2002] FCAFC 196; 115 IR 91

Sheehan v Tin Can Bay Country Club [2002] FMCA 95

Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] FCAFC 128; 256 FCR 247

Sluggett v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 987; 123 FCR 561

State of New South Wales – Sydney Trains v Annovazzi [2024] FCAFC 120

Taylor v August and Pemberton Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1313; 328 IR 1

Walker v Victoria [2011] FCA 258

Walker v Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38

C Ronalds AO and B Byrnes, Discrimination Law and Practice (The Federation Press, 6^th edn, 2024)

Division: General Division

Registry: New South Wales

National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Number…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] FCA 420
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Reurich v Savills (SA) Pty Ltd involved an applicant who alleged that he was discriminated against and victimised by various respondents due to his disability and the presence of an assistance animal. The applicant claimed that he was barred from entering a shopping centre, which he argued was a form of direct and indirect discrimination under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). Furthermore, the applicant alleged that the respondents victimised him due to his prior complaints to the Australian Human Rights Commission and the initiation of legal proceedings. The applicant also claimed that the respondents incited others to act against him, which he argued constituted a criminal incitement under the same Act. The court was required to determine whether the applicant's claims were valid and if the court had jurisdiction over the alleged criminal victimisation and incitement.

The court found that the applicant's claims of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the criminal incitement, were not valid. The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction over the criminal victimisation and incitement claims, and therefore, these claims were dismissed. The court also found that the applicant's claim of civil victimisation was not established. Consequently, the applicant's application was dismissed in its entirety. The court noted that the losing party usually pays the other parties' costs, but it was uncertain whether the respondents would pursue their costs. The court made timetabling orders for the potential application for costs and set a deadline for any submissions.

The court concluded that the application must be dismissed due to the lack of valid claims and jurisdiction over certain parts of the application. The court ordered that the application be dismissed, and any application for costs must be filed and served by a specific deadline. If no application for costs was made within the specified timeframe, there would be no order as to costs. The court referred to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 for the entry of orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

2. Any application for costs, together with any evidence and submissions (of not more than three pages) be filed and served by 4:00pm on 7 May 2025.

3. Any affidavit(s) and submissions (of not more than three pages) in response be filed and served by 4:00pm on 23 May 2025.

4. Any application for costs be determined on the papers.

5. If no application for costs is made within the time frame fixed by order 2 above, there be no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

It is ordinary that the losing party in a proceeding of this kind pays the other parties’ costs. However, it is not clear in this case as to whether the respondents will be pursuing their costs. There may be good reason why they do not. This is particularly so with respect to Statewide and Mr Dixon who brought and primarily relied upon a misconceived summary dismissal application and abandoned it at hearing. Accordingly, the Court will make timetabling orders that provide the procedure for the making of a costs order (if it is sought) and for it to be determined on the papers. Conclusion For all the above reasons, Mr Reurich’s application must be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

File number:	NSD 29 of 2024
Judgment of:	RAPER J
Date of judgment:	30 April 2025
Catchwords:	DISCRIMINATION LAW – where the applicant was barred, then repeatedly barred from access to premises (a shopping centre) – whether the applicant was directly or indirectly discriminated against by the first and second respondents by reason of his disability or having an assistance animal under s 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) – whether the applicant was victimised, pursuant to ss 42 or 58A of the DDA, by reason of having made a complaint about the third respondent previously to the Australian Human Rights Commission and/or bringing proceedings – where the applicant claims that the respondents incited others pursuant to s 43 of the DDA – whether the Court has no jurisdiction with respect to s 42 criminal victimisation claim or s 43 criminal incitement claim – whether s 58A civil victimisation claim is established – application dismissed
Legislation:	Anti-Discrimination and Human Rights Legislation Amendment (Respect at Work) Act 2022 (Cth) sch 7 item 12 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) ss 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 23, 24, 42, 43, 54A, 58A, 122, 123 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) s 94
Cases cited:	Australian Medical Council v Wilson (Siddiqui’s case) (1996) 68 FCR 46; 137 ALR 653 Bibawi v Australian Human Rights Commission [2021] FCA 1476 Georgiou v Spencer Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] FCA 22 Haar v Maldon Nominees Pty Ltd (t/a McDonalds) [2000] FMCA 5; 184 ALR 83 Hanson v Burston [2022] FCA 1234 Haraksin v Murrays Australia Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 217; 211 FCR 1 Ioannou v Commonwealth [2012] FCA 1228 KLK Investments Pty Ltd v Riley (1993) 10 WAR 523 Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines [2015] FCAFC 130; 254 FCR 207 Myers v Alfred Hospital [2023] FCA 833 O’Connor v Ross (No 1) [2002] FMCA 210 Penhall-Jones v State of NSW [2007] FCA 925 Purvis v State of New South Wales [2003] HCA 62; 217 CLR 92 Queensland v Forest [2008] FCAFC 96; 168 FCR 532 Reurich v Club Jervis Bay Ltd [2018] FCA 1220; 360 ALR 296 Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) [2002] FCAFC 196; 115 IR 91 Sheehan v Tin Can Bay Country Club [2002] FMCA 95 Sklavos v Australasian College of Dermatologists [2017] FCAFC 128; 256 FCR 247 Sluggett v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2002] FCA 987; 123 FCR 561 State of New South Wales – Sydney Trains v Annovazzi [2024] FCAFC 120 Taylor v August and Pemberton Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1313; 328 IR 1 Walker v Victoria [2011] FCA 258 Walker v Victoria [2012] FCAFC 38 C Ronalds AO and B Byrnes, Discrimination Law and Practice (The Federation Press, 6^th edn, 2024)
Division:	General Division
Registry:	New South Wales
National Practice Area:	Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights
Number…