Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc

Case

[2013] QCAT 261


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Yeo v Brisbane Polo Club Inc [2013] QCAT 261 [2013] QCAT 261

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Peter Yeo (Applicant/Appellant) has filed a complaint against the Brisbane Polo Club Inc (Respondent) for discrimination. Mr Yeo, who requires a wheelchair for mobility, alleged that the Club failed to provide him with goods and services on occasions in July and September 2010 and June 2011 because it does not have access for persons in wheelchairs. The Club applied under section 47 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (QCAT Act) for the dismissal of the complaint on the basis that it is misconceived, because it is exempt from the operation of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (AD Act). The Club claimed an exemption under section 46(2) of the AD Act. Section 46(1) of the AD Act provides that a person who supplies goods and services must not discriminate against another person, including by failing to supply the goods and services. Section 46(2) provides that an exemption applies to an association established for prescribed purposes which does not carry out its purposes for making a profit. The issue for the court was whether the principles set out in Dey v Victorian Railways Commissioners applied to the Club's application for striking out and whether Mr Yeo had an arguable case of discrimination. The court found that the principles of Dey applied to the Club's application for striking out and that Mr Yeo had an arguable case of discrimination. The court found that the Club's application for striking out was misplaced and should have requested the final determination of the preliminary point of whether it was entitled to an exemption under s 46(2). The court dismissed the Club's application for striking out and ordered that the issue of the exemption be listed for final hearing as a preliminary issue. The court also ordered that Mr Yeo file any further material and submissions relied upon by him, and that the Club can reply. The court urged the Club to request amendment to the directions for filing of material if it intended to provide further substantive material in support of the exemption claimed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Anti-discrimination Law

Legal Concepts

  • Discrimination

  • Exemption

  • Anti-Discrimination Act 1991

  • Prescribed Purposes

  • Making a Profit

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
JSK v Nyo [2025] QCAT 94

Cases Citing This Decision

60

Cases Cited

11

Statutory Material Cited

0

Agar v Hyde [2000] HCA 41