WORRALL AND ACT HEALTH

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL

CITATION:WORRALL AND ACT HEALTH [2006] ACTDT 1 (18 JANUARY 2006)

DT05/198

Catchwords:  Discrimination in the provision of services – complainant suffering disability and holding political conviction – indirect discrimination – application to strike out complaint – whether application premature – whether complaint lacking in substance – whether causative link between relevant attributes and unfavourable treatment established.

Discrimination Act 1991, ss 7, 8, 20, 68, 89

Equal Opportunity Act 1984, s 44C

Clean Ocean Foundation v Environment Protection Authority (2003) 20 VAR 227

Edgley v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd (2001) 108 FCR 1

Legal Aid Commissioner (ACT) & Ors v Grundy [1999] ACTSC 318

Lucy Couper and ACT Housing, DT03/18 dated 22 June 2004

Purvis v NSW Department of Education & Training [2003] HCA 62 (11 November 2003)

State Electricity Commission v Rabel & Ors [1997] EOC 92/875

Waters v Public Transport Commission (1991) 173 CLR 349

Tribunal:Mr M H Peedom, Deputy President

Date:18 January 2006

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY                   )

DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL  )          NO:     DT05/198

RE:      TONY WORRALL
Complainant

AND:   ACT HEALTH
Respondent

ORDER

Tribunal  :          Mr M H Peedom, Deputy President

Date  :          18 January 2006

Order  :

Pursuant to section 89 of the Discrimination Act 1991, the Tribunal orders that the complaint be struck out.

……………………….
  Deputy President

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY                   )

DISCRIMINATION TRIBUNAL  )          NO:     DT05/198

RE:      TONY WORRALL
Complainant

AND:   ACT HEALTH
Respondent

REASONS

18 January 2006  Mr M H Peedom, Deputy President

The complaint

On 17 November 2004 the complainant made a complaint to the Discrimination Commissioner alleging that he had been discriminated against by the respondent in the provision of goods, services or facilities on the grounds of a disability and of political conviction.  He also alleged that he was victimised by the respondent because he had made the complaint.

2.  In the complaint form lodged with the Discrimination Commissioner the complainant gave the following account of his complaint:

I attended the Dental Health Clinic in Civic on the 12^th November 2004 at 10-15am.  Another very unpleasant experience at the hands of the staff of the Dental Health authority, Dragarna the senior receptionist said that non [sic] of the staff want to attend to me and that was ‘official policy’.  I was told that I would not be served and that staff of the dental authority staff had a fore knowledge of what was to happen, I am not a very nice person, and Dental Health Authority staff were not going to serve me.  I was seen by Dr. Long the head dentist.  I was told to sit in the chair, I told Dr. Long that I only had four teeth, one is broken they have been examined since 2000, at all my other appointments, and still nothing has been done, so I wanted a dental plan.  Dr. Long gave me a

Dental program

1)        remove all my lower teeth

2)leave them to settle for three months, leave me for three months…