Beagan v Bi-Lo Pty Limited t/as BI-LO Killarney Vale [2011] NSWADT 301

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Beagan v Bi-Lo Pty Limited t/as BI-LO Killarney Vale [2011] NSWADT 301 Decision date: 07 November 2011 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Scahill, Judicial Member M Nasir, Non -judicial member J Schwager, Non -judicial member Decision: The Tribunal dismissed the Applicant's case pursuant to section 92 (1) (a) and section 102 of the ADA as it is "misconceived". Legislation Cited: State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) Cases Cited: Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr (EOD) [2001] NSWADTAP 16 Langley v Niland [1981] 2 NSWLR 104 Laurent v Commissioner of Police [2009] WASAT 254 (23 December 2009) Nicholls and Nicholls v Director General, Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009] NSWADTAP 20 Rae v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Force (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 36 Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2001] NSWADT 4 at [10]). Sullivan v State of NSW (NSW Police Force) [2009] NSWADT 2 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Barbara Beagan (Applicant) Bi-Lo Pty Ltd (Respondent) File Number(s): 111062

REasons for decision 1Ms Beagan lodged a complaint with the Anti Discrimination Board on 7 December 2010 against Bi-Lo Pty Limited t/as BI-LO Killarney Vale alleging discrimination on the grounds of disability and age in the provision of goods and services. 2The Applicant set her case out in the letter of 7 December 2010 to the ADB; a further letter received at the ADB on 14 March 2011 and a Statement of Facts to the ADT dated 20 August 2011. 3The complaint alleges that * on 26th of November 2010 the Applicant was denied a refund on a five pack of Quick Eze and toilet paper; * she was then barred from attending the store; * on a previous occasion the manager had said her behaviour must be due to age. * the barring from the store had caused her a great deal of distress - physically and emotionally; and * the Applicant had been discriminated against by the Respondent on the grounds of her age and her disability.