Anti-Discrimination Decision a Landmark

The press has reported that a Sydney woman has won a landmark anti-discrimination case against the bus company Murrays Australia Ltd. The applicant in the case had initially taken action against the bus company Murrays in 2009 (see Haraksin  v Murrays Australia Ltd [2010] FCA 1133 (20 October 2010)) after it refused to book her a seat from Sydney to Canberra on one of their buses because she was in a wheelchair.

Background

The case arose because Ms Haraksin was told when she had tried to book a bus trip from Sydney to Canberra that the company Murrays Ltd had no wheelchair-accessible buses in its bus fleet. As a result of this, in 2009, Ms Haraskin began her case by way of an application for an order under Federal Court Rules Order 62A rule 1 to limit the the maximum costs that may be recovered in this proceeding by one party from the other party in the action. In that case it was argued that Haraskin suffered from physical disability and was the subject of "direct" and "indirect discrimination" which contravened the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) by Murrays resulting from Murray's alleged failure to provide wheelchair accessible coaches.

In the initial case, factors relevant to exercise of Court’s discretion to limit costs were: the public interest element of the case, the fact that Haraskin was not seeking compensation, the fact that Haraskin had substantial assets, the fact that the proceeding were unlikely to be legally or factually complex and the fact that Haraskin would not proceed with the case if no order under Order 62A rule 1 was made. The court found that it was appropriate to make the order in the case in the amount of $25,000, as an estimate of likely costs.

Result

The case finally progressed to judgment on Thursday (14 March 2013), when the Federal Court found that Murrays Ltd had breached the Disability Standards for Accessible Public Transport 2002 (Cth) which at the time required 25 percent of its fleet to be wheelchair accessible.

Ms Haraksin is quoted by the ABC as reaffirming that she was not interested in compensation, saying:

"Right now the legislation says that the only way that things like the standards can be enforced if there are breaches is that people actually individually file a complaint," ... "It's not about me, it's about making sure the standards are complied with."

National advocacy group People with Disability Australia is reported to have welcomed the decision, stating through its preasident:

"This judgment sets an important precedent for all Australians with a disability and puts all public transport operators on notice. They can't afford to ignore the disability standards."

Murrays Australia management has advised that since 2009 it had taken steps to ensure it was compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act including the provision of a bus with a wheelchair lift for any customer who informed the company during a booking.

Sources: Read the intial case, ABC report, SMH report

Our LawOne Service provides over 70, 000 links to cases discussing legislative provisions – just one of the features of the premium legal product on the market today.