CASE NOTE
CASE NOTE: Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor v GK
INTRO
The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) aims to ensure equality among society yet it appears the recent amendment specifically allows discrimination.1 This judgement will be assessed on the basis for the appeal application, the judgements and the issues and questions which this case raises.
I FACTS
GK was a self-employed sex worker. GK periodically stayed at the Drovers Rest Motel at Moranbah for the purposes of sex work. Mrs Hartley, director of Dovedeen Pty Ltd and manager of the motel, denied GK, the respondent, further accommodation because she was aware GK was performing sex work. Mrs Hartley advised her that she would have to stay somewhere else. GK acknowledged that the refusal to accommodate her at Drovers rest was not because of who she was but because of what she was doing. Mr Hartley, also director of Dovedeen Pty Ltd, gave evidence that his understanding was that legally he could not allow people to conduct a business in the motel and under the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld). GK complained of direct discrimination on the basis of her engagement in ‘lawful sexual activity’. A leave for appeal against the Appeal Tribunal’s decision has now been applied for by Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Mrs Hartley proceeding on the 19 March 2013.
II JUDGMENTS
Fraser JA states that it was an error of law that the Appeal Tribunal held that the prohibition in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 includes ‘the treatment of a person less favourably because he or she carries on lawful sexual activity on … particular premises.’2 The initial trial concluded that any person wishing to carry out such activities as prostitution would be refused accommodation and therefore GK was not treated less favourably than any other who was not a lawfully employed sex worker seeking a room for the same purposes.3 For this reason GK was not the subject of direct discrimination. Upon an internal appeal it was rather found that the conduct of Dovedeen Pty
INTRO
The Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) aims to ensure equality among society yet it appears the recent amendment specifically allows discrimination.1 This judgement will be assessed on the basis for the appeal application, the judgements and the issues and questions which this case raises.
I FACTS
GK was a self-employed sex worker. GK periodically stayed at the Drovers Rest Motel at Moranbah for the purposes of sex work. Mrs Hartley, director of Dovedeen Pty Ltd and manager of the motel, denied GK, the respondent, further accommodation because she was aware GK was performing sex work. Mrs Hartley advised her that she would have to stay somewhere else. GK acknowledged that the refusal to accommodate her at Drovers rest was not because of who she was but because of what she was doing. Mr Hartley, also director of Dovedeen Pty Ltd, gave evidence that his understanding was that legally he could not allow people to conduct a business in the motel and under the Liquor Act 1992 (Qld). GK complained of direct discrimination on the basis of her engagement in ‘lawful sexual activity’. A leave for appeal against the Appeal Tribunal’s decision has now been applied for by Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Mrs Hartley proceeding on the 19 March 2013.
II JUDGMENTS
Fraser JA states that it was an error of law that the Appeal Tribunal held that the prohibition in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 includes ‘the treatment of a person less favourably because he or she carries on lawful sexual activity on … particular premises.’2 The initial trial concluded that any person wishing to carry out such activities as prostitution would be refused accommodation and therefore GK was not treated less favourably than any other who was not a lawfully employed sex worker seeking a room for the same purposes.3 For this reason GK was not the subject of direct discrimination. Upon an internal appeal it was rather found that the conduct of Dovedeen Pty
Bibliography: 1. Articles/Books/Reports Anti-Discrimination Commission Queensland, Dovedeen Pty Ltd v GK [2013] QCA 116 (2013) Elise Worthington ‘Qld Court rules prostitution was not discriminated against’ (2013) ABC. Melbourne University Law Review Association, Melbourne Journal of International Law; Australian Guide to Legal Citation, 3rd Ed. (2010) Richard Krever, Writig a Case Note, Mastering law studies and law exam techniques, Butterworths, %th ed (2001) pp Richard Krever, amended by Micheal Quinlan, Guide to Reading a case and to preparing a case not (2014) Survive Law, How to write a case note (2010), 2. Cases Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor v GK [2013] QCA 116 (2013) (17 may 2013) Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor v GK[2013] QCA 194 (19 July 2013) GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Anor [2011] QCAT 441 (22 March 2011) GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Anor (No 2) [2011] QCAT 445 (15 September 2011) GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor (No 3) [2011] QCAT 509 (25 October 2011) GK v Dovedeen Pty Ltd and Anor [2012] QCATA 128 (31 July 2012) Lyons v State of Queensland (No 2) [2013] QCAT 731, ( 1 December, 2013) Survive Law, Dovedeen Pty Ltd & Anor v GK [2013] QCA 116 (2013)