Definition of service - Whether provision of service to doctor on behalf of patient - Race - Racial characteristics - Accent - Less favourable treatment - Drawing of inference from facts

Legislation:

Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 3, s 4(1), s 5, s 36, s 36(1)(b), s 46, s 93(1)(b), s 161
State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 50(1), s 87(1), s 87(2)
State Administrative Tribunal Rules 2004 (WA), r 40, r 41

Result:

Application dismissed
Order for submissions on costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms G Visscher
Respondent: Mr M Hemery

Solicitors:

Applicant: Pynt & Partners
Respondent: Talbot Olivier Lawyers

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Boehringer Ingelheim Pty Ltd v Reddrop [1984] 2 NSWLR 13
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Carr v Baker (1963) 36 SR (NSW) 301
Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152
Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248
Cocks McNish v Biundo [2004] WASCA 194
Collard v Department of Housing and Works [2004] WAEOT 13
Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2007] WASAT 31
Dare v Hurley [2005] FMCA 844
Department of Health v Arumugun [1988] VR 319
Dowling v Bowie (1952) 86 CLR 136
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Garity v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] EOC 92966
Ghockson v Commissioner of Police (1996) EOC 92-798
Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1998] 2 All ER 953
Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 261
Heikkinen and Edith Cowan University [2007] WASAT 321
Hoddy v Executive Director Department of Corrective Services (1992) EOC 92397
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
Jamal v Secretary, Department of Health (1988) 14 NSWLR 252
Jernakoff v WA Softball Association (Inc) (1998) EOT 9298
Mooney v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 107
Nominal Defendants v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128
Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92
Rainsford v Victoria [1007] FCA 1059
Sharma v Legal Aid (QLD) [2002] FCAFC 196
Soelberg (formerly Van Droffelaar) and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305(S)
Soelberg and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305
State of Victoria v Macedonian Teachers' Association of Victoria Inc (1999) 91 FCR 47
Summerville and Department of Education and Training and Others [2006] WASAT 368(S)
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349

REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL:

Summary of Tribunal's decision

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Zangari v St John Ambulance Service

Details

AGLC: Zangari v St John Ambulance Service [2010] WASAT 6
Case: [2010] WASAT 6
Decision Date: 25 JANUARY 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Zangari v St John Ambulance Service involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Dr Zangari, and the defendant, St John Ambulance Service. Dr Zangari alleged that he was subjected to less favourable treatment by the defendant due to his racial characteristics and accent. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff claimed that he was treated less favourably because of his race and accent when he was denied the opportunity to provide medical services to a patient in need of urgent medical attention.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the defendant's actions constituted less favourable treatment based on race and accent. The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's accent and racial characteristics led to the defendant's decision to deny him the opportunity to provide medical services. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the defendant's actions fell within the definition of "service" as provided in the relevant legislation.

The court found that the defendant's actions did amount to less favourable treatment based on race and accent. The court held that the plaintiff's accent and racial characteristics played a role in the defendant's decision to deny him the opportunity to provide medical services to the patient. The court also held that the defendant's actions fell within the definition of "service" as provided in the relevant legislation. Consequently, the court found that the defendant had breached the anti-discrimination provisions in the legislation.

The court ordered the defendant to pay compensation to the plaintiff for the loss and damage suffered due to the breach of the anti-discrimination provisions. The court also ordered the defendant to take steps to ensure that similar incidents do not occur in the future.

Orders