Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T13:09:09.391Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Hard Case Making Bad Law: Purvis V New South Wales and the Role of the Comparator under the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (CTH)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 January 2025

Colin D Campbell
Colin D Campbell*
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, Monash University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Pursuant to s 5(1) of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (“the Act“), an alleged discriminator will have discriminated against a person with a disability if they treat the disabled person less favourably, because of their disability, than they treat or would have treated someone without the disability, ‘in circumstances that are the same or are not materially different'.

A matter crucial to the assessment of whether there has been illegal discrimination for the purposes of the Act, therefore, is what constitutes the circumstances of the aggrieved person's case. In order for there to be a contravention of the Act not only must the alleged discriminator have treated the disabled person less favourably than they would have treated someone without a disability, but the alleged discriminator must have treated the disabled person less favourably than they would have treated someone without a disability who was in the same circumstances as the person with the disability.

Type
Research Article
Information
Federal Law Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 111 - 128
Copyright
Copyright © 2007 The Australian National University

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I would like to thank my colleague Dale Smith for his assistance in the writing of this piece. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

1 (2003) 217 CLR 92.

2 Ibid 161.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid 175.

7 Ibid 100–1.

8 Ibid 100.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid 101.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid 131 (emphasis in original).

13 Ibid 134. See also 137.

14 [2004] FCA 485 (Unreported, Heerey J, 23 April 2004).

15 Ibid [86].

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid.

18 Ibid.

19 Ibid.

20 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 117 (emphasis in original).

21 World Health Organization, International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps: A Manual of Classification Relating to the Consequences of Disease (1980).

22 Ibid 118 (McHugh and Kirby JJ).

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid 119.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid 175.

28 Ibid 156–7.

29 Ibid.

30 Ibid 160.

31 Ibid 160–1.

32 Ibid 101.

33 Ibid 134.

34 Disability Discrimination Act 1993 (Cth) s 3.

35 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 135.

36 See, eg, Power v Aboriginal Hostels Ltd (2003) 133 FCR 254, 259 (Selway J).

37 It is almost certain that the word ‘with’ here is a drafting error, and should be ‘without'. See Fetherston v Peninsula Health [2004] FCA 485 (Unreported, Heerey J, 23 April 2004) [90].

38 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 159.

39 [2004] FCA 485 (Unreported, Heerey J, 23 April 2004). See the text accompanying n 14–19.

40 [2005] FMCA 2 (Unreported, Driver FM, 7 February 2005).

41 Ibid [38].

42 Ibid [145].

43 Ibid.

44 See the text accompanying n 7–11.

45 See above Part I(A)(1) entitled ‘Internal tension'.

46 See above Part I(A)(4)–(5).

47 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 175.

48 Ibid 161.

49 Ibid 162.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid 161 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

52 Those areas in which illegal discrimination may occur, but in which the unjustifiable hardship defence was not available when Purvis was decided, are listed by McHugh and Kirby JJ in Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 123.

53 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 11(a).

54 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 11(b).

55 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 123 (emphasis in original).

56 Ibid.

57 See Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 22(4).

58 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 129.

59 Ibid.

60 See Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) (2002) 117 FCR 237, 247–8 (Spender, Gyles and Conti JJ).

61 The observation of McHugh and Kirby JJ in Purvis that ‘construing the Act narrowly because of the consequences in a particular case may lead to injustices in other cases perceived by the judicial mind as more deserving’ alludes to the same point: see Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 103–4.

62 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 3(a).

63 As Edwards observes, the majority does not advert to the role played in its interpretation of s 5(1) by the unavailability of the unjustifiable hardship defence in the context of the facts of Purvis: Edwards, Samantha, ‘Purvis in the High Court Behaviour, Disability and the Meaning of Direct Discrimination’ (2004) 26 Sydney Law Review 639, 650.Google Scholar

64 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 158 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

65 Ibid (emphasis in original).

66 Ibid (footnote omitted), quoting Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (UK) s 5(1) (emphasis added by the High Court of Australia).

67 Ibid (emphasis in original).

68 Ibid.

69 See the observations to the contrary in Clark v TDG Ltd (t/a Novacold Ltd) [1999] 2 All ER 977, 987 (Mummery LJ).

70 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 162 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

71 Ibid.

72 See text accompanying n 14–19 above.

73 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 158 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

74 Ibid 162 (Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

75 Ibid.

76 But not always a foregone conclusion — see above Part I(A)(3) entitled ‘The modest role accorded to s 5(1)'.

77 Cf the assertion of Gleeson CJ to the contrary: Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 101.

78 Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) s 10(b).

79 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 99.

80 Ibid 101.

81 Ibid 100.

82 Ibid 99.

83 Ibid.

84 Ibid 98.

85 Ibid.

86 Ibid.

87 Convention on the Rights of the Child, opened for signature 20 November 1989, 1577 UNTS 3 (entered into force 2 September 1990).

88 Purvis (2003) 217 CLR 92, 98.

89 Ibid.