Skinner v Sully

CITATION: Skinner v Sully [2011] QCAT 589

PARTIES:	Mr Geoffrey Skinner (Applicant)
v
Mr Matt Sully (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:   ADL128-10

MATTER TYPE: Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE: 4 August 2011

HEARD AT: Brisbane

DECISION OF: Dr Bridget Cullen, Member

DELIVERED ON: 23 November 2011

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:      The Respondent, Matt Sully, to pay the sum of $13,000.00 damages, inclusive of interest, to the Applicant, Geoffrey Skinner, no later than 31 December 2011.

CATCHWORDS: 

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION MATTERS – visual impairment –guide dog – accommodation

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

McNamara v Golonaise Pty Ltd & Janes [2006] QADT 7

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

The parties were self-represented.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Summary of Facts

1. This is a complaint arising out of Mr Geoffrey and Mrs Janet Skinner’s efforts to book a relaxing holiday, using on on-line website, which links owners of holiday units with prospective renters.  The Respondent in this matter, Mr Matt Sully, had listed his holiday unit in a luxury complex located at Broadbeach on the Gold Coast with Stayz. 

   [1]Stayz.com.au is not a Respondent in this matter, and no allegations have been made against “Stayz”.

1. As explained by Mr Sully, in listing his holiday unit with Stayz, he was able to advertise to a much larger group of prospective holiday renters searching online for places to stay.  Enquiries about the unit were directed by Stayz to Mr Sully, who then responded to the persons enquiring himself.  It was in this manner that Mr Sully found himself engaging in discussions about the unit with Mr and Mrs Skinner.

1. Late in the evening on 14 January 2010, Mr and Mrs Skinner were huddled around their computer, trying to plan a holiday during the winter months on the Gold Coast.  They were enthusiastic about a deal for a “four week stay at a luxury apartment at Ultra, Broadbeach[2],” and they submitted a booking request.  Shortly thereafter, they received a response from Mr Sully that the apartment was available for the 4 week period, at a cost of $2,772.00, with the deposit to be paid within 7 days of making the official booking.

   [2]        Applicant’s Contentions, filed in QCAT on 28 February 2011.

1. Mr Skinner then endeavoured to book the apartment and obtain details to transfer the deposit to Mr Sully.  At this juncture, Mr Skinner advised Mr Sully that his guide dog would be travelling with him and staying in the unit.  The ensuing correspondence between the parties led Mr Sully to decline Mr Skinner accommodation, for the reason that he says Mr Skinner was “blunt” and displayed a “demeanour of aggression, intolerance, impatience and basically [was] quite rude.”[3]  Mr Skinner made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland on 26 July 2010 which was accepted on 10 August 2010, alleging that he was quite simply refused accommodation on the basis of his possessing a guide dog.

   [3]        Respondent’s Contentions, filed in QCAT on 19 April 2011.

1. The email trail between the parties is not in contention.  However, to use the expression adopted…