Sully v Skinner

Sully v Skinner is a case involving the refusal of the applicant, Sully, to rent accommodation to the respondent, Skinner, due to Skinner's use of a guide dog. The dispute reached the court, where it was necessary to determine whether Sully's refusal constituted discrimination under the relevant anti-discrimination laws, and if the appropriate legislation had been applied. The court also considered whether there had been any error in the exercise of discretion in awarding compensation, and if references to comparable cases were appropriate in this context.

The legal issues at the heart of this case included whether the refusal to rent constituted discriminatory conduct under the applicable anti-discrimination legislation, and if the correct legal framework had been applied by the lower court. Additionally, the court examined whether the discretion exercised in awarding compensation was appropriate, and if it was correct to refer to other cases in the determination of the matter.

In its reasoning, the court found that the lower court's findings of fact were open on the evidence presented and that the discretion exercised in awarding compensation was not misapplied. The court further determined that the legislation applied was correct and that the reference to comparable cases was appropriate in this instance. As such, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused. The lower court's decision stood, affirming that the refusal to rent to Skinner because of his guide dog did not constitute discriminatory conduct.