Ryan as Personal Representative of the Estate of the Late Peter John Ryan v Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service

This matter came before Jarrett J of the Supreme Court of Queensland concerning a dispute between the applicant, Ryan, as the personal representative of the estate of the late Peter John Ryan, and the respondent, Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service. The applicant alleged that the respondent imposed certain requirements or conditions on Mr Ryan's access to the hospital and its services, particularly in relation to external access areas, signage, and internal wayfinding, which were problematic for him due to his vision impairment.

The court was required to determine whether the design and construction of the hospital imposed specific requirements or conditions on Mr Ryan concerning his ability to safely access the emergency vehicle set down and passenger pick-up/drop-off areas, the path to the main entrance, and internal wayfinding. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the absence of tactile and Braille signage, and the respondent's wayfinding strategy, imposed a requirement that Mr Ryan could not reasonably or practically comply with due to his vision impairment, and whether this constituted a disadvantage.

Jarrett J reasoned that the respondent's concession that a requirement was imposed on Mr Ryan and that this imposition was unreasonable was significant. The court found that the lack of raised tactile and/or Braille signage imposed a requirement on Mr Ryan to access the hospital without the assistance of such signage. Similarly, the absence of a wayfinding strategy accommodating vision-impaired individuals imposed a requirement that Mr Ryan could not access the hospital without the assistance of such a system. Applying a broad and liberal approach, the court considered whether Mr Ryan could comply with these requirements reasonably, practically, and with dignity, concluding that persons without similar disabilities were more easily able to satisfy these requirements, and that the inability of vision-impaired individuals to comply would have an adverse impact.

The court found that the design and construction of the hospital imposed the contended requirements or conditions upon Mr Ryan. The court also found that the wayfinding strategy in place was not functional for Mr Ryan or individuals with similar impairments, given the respondent's concession that Mr Ryan had to access the hospital without the use of signs containing Braille and tactile information.