Hautlieu Pty Ltd t/a Russell Pathology v McIntosh

[2000] WASCA 146

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Equal Opportunity
2. › Discrimination
3. › Family responsibility or family status
4. › Whether statutory definition confined to relationships of care or responsibility
5. › Status of being a relative of a particular person
6. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), ss 4, 35A, 35B
1. Equal Opportunity
2. › Victimisation
3. › Detriment on ground of complaint under Act
4. › Whether dominant or substantial purpose of acts was victimisation
5. › Meaning of detriment
6. › Whether inferences of victimisation open on the evidence
7. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 67
1. Appeal
2. › Appeal on question of law from specialist tribunal
3. › Extent to which errors of fact can constitute errors of law
4. › No evidence to support finding
5. › Whether inferences reasonably open
6. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 134

Quick Take

The definition of 'family responsibility or family status' in s 4 of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA) encompasses the status of being a relative of a particular person and is not confined to relationships involving care or responsibility. In victimisation claims under s 67, the rejection of a respondent's explanation for its conduct does not, without more, permit the drawing of a positive inference of victimisation; there must be primary facts from which the inference can reasonably be drawn. The concept of 'detriment' in victimisation claims requires a disadvantage that is a matter of substance.