where the applicant was barred, then repeatedly barred from access to premises (a shopping centre)
whether the applicant was directly or indirectly discriminated against by the first and second respondents by reason of his disability or having an assistance animal under s 23 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
whether the applicant was victimised, pursuant to ss 42 or 58A of the DDA, by reason of having made a complaint about the third respondent previously to the Australian Human Rights Commission and/or bringing proceedings
Case Details
Citation[2025] FCA 420
CourtFCA
JurisdictionCommonwealth
Unlock so much more with Barrister AI
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 4 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.
