Airflite Pty Ltd v Goyal

[2003] WASCA 45

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Question of law
3. › Scope of appellate review
4. › Appeal from specialist tribunal confined to questions of law
5. › Whether finding of fact reviewable
6. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 134(1)
1. Discrimination
2. › Impairment discrimination
3. › Employment
4. › Refusal to employ on ground of impairment
5. › Statutory exception
6. › Whether employer concluded applicant unable to carry out work
7. › Distinction between risk minimisation and assessment of ability
8. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), ss 66B(1)(b), 66Q(1)(a)
1. Discrimination
2. › Impairment discrimination
3. › Damages
4. › General damages for injured feelings
5. › Whether award manifestly excessive
6. › Relevance of statutory maximum
7. › Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), s 127

Quick Take

Under s 66Q(1) of the Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (WA), the employer must establish that it concluded the applicant would be unable to carry out the work, not merely that it would not be in the employer's best interests to employ the applicant on risk minimisation grounds. A Tribunal finding that the employer's focus was on risk minimisation rather than ability to perform work is a finding of fact unreviewable on appeal. General damages of $10,000 for a single refusal to employ on impairment grounds, where the employer acted on medical advice and without callousness, is manifestly excessive; $2,000 was substituted.