Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Edgley v Federal Capital Press of Australia Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 379
DISCRIMINATION – Discrimination Act 1991 (ACT)– appeal from Supreme Court of the ACT –– legislative scheme – objects of the Discrimination Act – structure, language and content of Discrimination Act - what constitutes discrimination – discrimination in respect of the provision of goods, services and facilities – discrimination on the ground of occupation – whether unfavourable treatment by respondent was because of the appellant's occupation – whether respondent's conduct was reasonable – whether question of "reasonableness" is one of fact or law COSTS - whether usual orders as to costs should follow – public interest element
WORDS AND PHRASES – "direct" discrimination – "indirect" discrimination Discrimination Act 1991 (A.C.T) Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act 1988 (Cth) Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT) Prezzi v Discrimination Commissioner (1996) EOC 92 – 803 cited Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349 followed I W v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1 followed Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165 followed James v Eastleigh Council [1990] 1 QB 61 cited Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR 1 cited. Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow (1956) AC 14 cited The Australian Gas Light Co v The Valuer-General (1940) 40 SR (NSW) 126 cited Vetter v Lake Macquarie City Council [2001] HCA 12 cited Collector of Customs v Agfa-Gevaert Ltd (1996) 186 CLR 389 followed Coal & Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission (2000) 74 ALJR 1348 followed South-West Forest Defence Foundation v Executive Director, Department of Conservation and Land Management (WA) (No 2) (1998) 72 ALJR 1008 cited Friends of Hinchinbrook Society Inc v Minister for the Environment (1988) 84 FCR 186 cited Hollier v Australian Maritime Safety Authority [1998] FCA 975 cited Scott v Secretary, Department of Social Security (No. 2) [2000] FCA 1450 followed Kelly v Apps (2000) FCR 101 cited
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate