The Equal Opportunity Act 2010

1. The Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (EO Act) is protective legislation that seeks to ensure that persons with named attributes are not discriminated against because of those attributes in relation to specified activities or classes of activities. One of those protected attributes is parental status.[1] Section 44 of the EO Act prohibits discrimination in the context of the provision of services. Section 52 prohibits discrimination in offering to provide accommodation and section 53 prohibits discrimination in providing accommodation.
2. Sections 44, 52 and 53 state as follows:

44 Discrimination in the provision of goods and services

(1) A person must not discriminate against another person -

(a) by refusing to provide goods or services to the other person; or

(b) in the terms on which goods or services are provided to the other person; or

(c) by subjecting the other person to any other detriment in connection with the provision of goods or services to him or her.

(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the goods or services are provided for payment.

52 Discrimination in offering to provide accommodation

A person must not discriminate against another person -

(a) by refusing, or failing to accept, the other person's application for accommodation; or

(b) in the way in which the other person's application for accommodation is processed; or

(c) in the terms on which accommodation is offered to the other person.

A person must not discriminate against another person -

(a) by varying the terms on which the accommodation is provided to the other person; or

(b) by denying or limiting access by the other person to any benefit associated with the accommodation; or

(c) by evicting the other person from the accommodation; or

(d) by refusing to extend or renew the provision of accommodation to the other person; or

(e) in the terms on which the provision of accommodation to the other person is extended or renewed; or

(f) by subjecting the other person to any other detriment in connection with the provision of accommodation to that person.

1. Mr Galea says that Mr Hartnett engaged in direct discrimination as defined in section 8 of the EO Act. In order to succeed in his claim, Mr Galea must show that he was treated unfavourably because of his parental status. Discrimination may be established whether or not the attribute was the only or dominant reason for the treatment, provided that it was a substantial reason. Motive is irrelevant in determining whether or not a person discriminates.[2]
2. Under section 125 of the EO Act, after hearing the evidence and representations of the parties, the Tribunal may find that a person has or has not contravened a provision. If it finds there has been a contravention, the Tribunal may make a range of orders including for a person to pay to the applicant an amount the Tribunal thinks fit to compensate for loss, damage or injury suffered in consequence of a contravention.

1. Mr Galea gave evidence in the form of a witness statement. Before the Tribunal, Mr Galea confirmed that the contents of his witness statement were true and correct. He gave some further oral evidence, was cross-examined by Mr Hartnett and was asked questions by the Tribunal.
2. Mrs Galea also gave evidence in the form of a witness statement. Before the Tribunal, Mrs Galea confirmed that the contents of the witness statement were true and correct. She was also cross-examined by Mr Hartnett and was asked questions by the Tribunal.
3. Mr DiRago, a friend of Mr Galea, made a statement regarding a telephone call he made to the Blairgowrie Caravan Park on 7 November 2011. Mr DiRago recorded the conversation on his mobile phone but did not tell Mr Hartnett he was doing so. Mr DiRago did not attend the hearing to give evidence due to ill health but his statement and the recording were available to the Tribunal.
4. Mr Hartnett did not file a witness statement in the proceeding, contrary to the directions made on 21 February 2012. As a consequence, Mr Galea heard Mr Hartnett's response to the complaint during his evidence before the Tribunal for the first time. Mr Hartnett was cross-examined by Mr Galea and the Tribunal asked him questions.

1. While the parties took very different views as to the meaning of some of what was said by them, a large amount of the evidence was agreed.
2. There was no dispute that Mr Galea telephoned the Blairgowrie Caravan Park on 24 October 2011 and spoke to Mr Hartnett about the availability of a caravan site in January 2012. That telephone call followed him having unsuccessfully telephoned about 15 other caravan parks seeking accommodation. On enquiring whether any sites were available for the above period, Mr Hartnett said that he had several sites but that Mr Galea would have to book for a three week block commencing from 24 December 2011. Mr Galea agreed and asked about the cost. On being told that there would be four people coming. Mr Hartnett said the price would be $190 per week for the first two people plus an extra $25 per week per person. Mr Galea said that was good and to book him in. There was a discussion about whether Mr Galea's boat could be accommodated and its size.
3. Mr Hartnett did not dispute the terms of the conversation, other than to say that no booking had in fact been made because he does not take bookings over the telephone and the required forms had not been processed.
4. The conversation ended with Mr Galea and Mr Hartnett agreeing that Mr Galea would come to the caravan park on the next Saturday.
5. On Saturday 29 October 2011 Mr & Mrs Galea drove from their home in Reservoir to the Blairgowrie Caravan Park. They had a discussion with Mr Hartnett about their planned holiday.
6. The evidence about the conversation between them shows that three topics were discussed: first, whether Mr & Mrs Galea's boat and trailer could be accommodated in the parking area; secondly, the ages of Mr & Mrs Galea's sons and the effect that would have on the quoted price; and thirdly, whether Mr & Mrs Galea's sons would be supervised.
7. As to the first matter, the parties agreed that, almost immediately on Mr & Mrs Galea arriving, Mr Hartnett expressed concern about the size of the boat and trailer together and said it could not fit in the parking area. It was agreed that Mr & Mrs Galea suggested that they could store it on a friend's property and that Mr Hartnett said it might be stolen. It was agreed that Mr & Mrs Galea then said that they would leave the boat at home.
8. As to the pricing, it was agreed that the original price quoted was for two children aged under 16 and that, once it was known that the sons were 18 and 21 years of age, a higher price would apply. It was agreed that Mr & Mrs Galea were willing to pay the higher price, which, according to the schedule provided, would have totalled $930 for the three week period.
9. It was agreed that Mr Hartnett referred to the need for children to be supervised. It was agreed that Mr & Mrs Galea told Mr Hartnett that their sons would be arriving with them and staying with them the whole time. There was disagreement about what else was said about the sons.
10. There was no dispute that, at the conclusion of the conversation, no booking had been made and Mr & Mrs Galea left the caravan park angry and upset.
11. It was also agreed that, about five minutes after driving away, Mr Galea telephoned the caravan park and asked to speak to the manager. Mr Hartnett said that was he. Mr Galea said words to the effect that he would sue Mr Hartnett.
12. I will now discuss in more detail those matters which are relevant to whether or not there was discriminatory treatment as alleged.

1. Mr Galea believed that, at the conclusion of the telephone discussion on 24 October 2011 with Mr Hartnett, he had made a booking for accommodation.
2. Mr Hartnett told the Tribunal that he does not take bookings over the telephone. He explained that, if people come in person, they can see the site. They also know where the caravan park is and that it is not on the beach. His position was, therefore, that Mr Galea had not made a booking on 24 October 2011. According to him, there is no booking until the booking form is processed.
3. The evidence does not support a conclusion that a booking had been made during the call. There was no evidence that Mr Galea had given Mr Hartnett his full name and address details. No deposit had been paid at that time.

1. Mr Galea said that, in the telephone call, he estimated that the length of his boat as about 20 feet long and that there was no suggestion that there was an issue about it being accommodated. Mr Hartnett's evidence was that he recalled Mr Galea calling to enquire about a booking for two adults and two children and referring to a 20 foot caravan and a 15 foot boat.
2. On arrival at the caravan park, there was a further discussion about the length of the boat and trailer. Mr Hartnett said he told Mr Galea that it would be too large for the boat parking area because its overall length, including the trailer, would have been around 27 to 30 feet long. For Mr Hartnett that would have created a safety risk to small children in the park and it would have caused inconvenience to others. He referred to Mr & Mrs Galea having two cars (presumably one each) and another coming later. He said that was too much. He said that he apologised and said that the boat and cars could not be accommodated. His position was that the original idea was to have two adults and two children with a caravan and a boat and then it became four adults, a large caravan and boat and three cars.
3. He agreed that Mr & Mrs Galea suggested that they would store the boat on a friend's property. Mr Hartnett was not happy with that as he thought that, if the boat was left on vacant land, it would be stolen.
4. Mr Hartnett's evidence was that he believed that, without the boat, the family would not enjoy the holiday with two young adults in the caravan with their parents. He told the Tribunal that, for this reason, he did not believe that his caravan park was right for the family and he suggested they look elsewhere.
5. Mr Hartnett also gave evidence that he did not believe that Mr & Mrs Galea would leave the boat at home: he believed they would bring it anyway and store it on another site.
6. Mr Galea believes that the boat was just an excuse Mr Hartnett relied on. I understand that Mr Galea's argument is that, as they had said they would leave the boat at home, it was not relevant to why they were unable to book.

1. I accept that Mr Hartnett had concerns about the length of the boat and trailer combined and the number of cars and whether they would pose a safety issue.
2. I have some difficulty accepting that Mr Hartnett believed that Mr & Mrs Galea would, contrary to their word, bring the boat anyway. He had only just met them and, while he said that he found Mr Galea's attitude towards him to be condescending, it seems to me rather odd to reach the conclusion from this that Mr Galea and his wife were liars. Mr Hartnett did not expressly state to Mr & Mrs Galea that he did not believe them. The evidence indicates that, at the end of the discussion about the boat, Mr & Mrs Galea had said it was not coming.
3. If, as suggested by Mr Hartnett's evidence, the reason no booking was taken was because the boat could not be accommodated, there would have been no need to move on to discuss the correct rates and the supervision of the Galea sons.
4. It is apparent from Mr Hartnett's own evidence that he suggested that Mr & Mrs Galea look elsewhere for alternative accommodation for themselves and their boat. I am satisfied that the effect of that aspect of the discussion is that Mr Hartnett refused accommodation to Mr Galea.
5. It is not necessary for me to determine whether or not Mr Hartnett's belief that the boat would be brought, regardless of what had been said, was a genuinely held belief and was a reason for Mr Hartnett deciding that the family could not be accommodated. As stated earlier, the alleged discrimination need not be the sole reason for the unfavourable treatment in issue, provided that it is a substantial one. So, if the boat was one reason for the accommodation booking being refused and another substantial reason related to Mr Galea's parental status, discrimination contrary to the EO Act would be proven.

1. Mr Galea says that, after clarifying the applicable rates, the discussion about his sons arose. He says that Mr Hartnett said he did not want the kids left alone at the park. Mr Galea said that he replied that they are young responsible adults of 18 and 21 years of age under his care and that they would be arriving and leaving the park with him and his wife. Mr Galea said that Mr Hartnett responded that he had a problem with the children as they were young adults and the family did not fit in with the park's clientele.
2. Mr Galea asked what was meant by that statement. Mr Galea said that Mr Hartnett replied that he preferred middle aged couples with young children and that he could not help Mr Galea. Completely surprised by this, Mr Galea said to Mr Hartnett that he had made him, Mr Galea, drive to the park under the pretence that he had secured a camp site and to pay for the accommodation. He further said to Mr Hartnett that, instead, he had been enticed to come to the park for Mr Hartnett to interview him and his wife and make a judgment once Mr Hartnett had seen them.
3. Mr Galea told the Tribunal that, at first, he could not understand why Mr Hartnett was saying they could not stay. His wife said 'Obviously he doesn't like kids" and Mr Hartnett said that he "doesn't want teenagers in the park".
4. Mr Galea left "in complete disbelief" at what had been said.
5. Mrs Galea said that, after the question of the correct rates had been clarified, Mr Hartnett voiced concerns about their two sons. He said they were young teenagers and young adults and he was concerned that the park would not cater for them. She asked about this remark and said she did not understand what Mr Hartnett was implying. Mr Hartnett was said to have replied "My park caters for middle aged couples and families with young children, your boys would not be able to be left in the park alone." Mrs Galea said she replied that that her boys "are sensible, responsible young adults that don't cause any trouble." Mrs Galea said that she was upset that Mr Hartnett assumed her sons would bring trouble to the park: that was uncalled for. She said at this point it was clear to her that Mr Hartnett did not want them to stay at his park.
6. Like her husband, she said she could not believe that Mr Hartnett demanded that they attend in person to pay, which amounted to an interview as to their suitability, only to be declined using first the boat storage issue and secondly their sons' ages as an excuse. She said she was furious.
7. She said that Mr Galea did not want to leave as he was wanting to finalise the accommodation when Mr Hartnett said "My park is not for you" and that they should seek alternative accommodation suggesting the foreshore parks in the area.
8. She said that she and Mr Galea left the premises in "total disbelief." She described her husband as being "infuriated." She felt that Mr Hartnett had not only declined their payment, but insulted their family and questioned their parenting skills.
9. Mrs Galea was asked why she referred to her parenting skills being questioned. She said it was because Mr Hartnett referred to them being young adults as relevant to billing and then about them being left alone - she could not understand this. She understood from what was said that they had to be under supervision at all times. She asked Mr Hartnett whether he thought they were trouble makers and would try to bring trouble to the park. Mr Hartnett said he did not say that. Mrs Galea said that it was insinuated.
10. Mr Hartnett said that the ages of Mr & Mrs Galea's sons were raised when they discussed the fees. He mentioned then the caravan park rule about supervising children but said it was irrelevant because they were adults and not children. Mr Hartnett said that the only issue with the sons ages was in regard to the tariffs.
11. Mr Hartnett agreed that he talked about the fact that the park has the full range of ages of clients, from "toddlers right through". He agreed he referred to most clients being middle aged couples. He said he was giving them an idea of what is in the park, including adult children. It was clear that Mr & Mrs Galea thought he was not taking the booking because of their sons and he was trying to show that was not the reason. He said it was immaterial whether the parents were there or not, apparently because the sons are adults. He said that, as Mr Galea said that they would all be there together, the question of the sons being left did not "come into the equation". He denied that he talked about young adults being left alone in the park. He stated that he would not have a business if he did not allow teenagers and young adults in the caravan park. He gave evidence that he had many young people in the caravan park.
12. Mr Hartnett was asked whether he had problems in the past with young adults in the park. His response was that, since schoolies had started, the young people went elsewhere away from their parents. He told the Tribunal that he has never had problems with young people coming separate from their parents. He explained that most of the sites are re-let annually and have caravans on them all year around. He said other clients tended to come back each summer.
13. Mr Hartnett said that the 29 October 2009 conversation ended with him suggesting they find somewhere else to stay where they could take their boat. He explained to the Tribunal that, if someone has a boat, it is there to be used and so they should go somewhere where they could use it. As mentioned earlier, Mr Hartnett had formed the view, based on his experience, that the family would not enjoy the holiday if the sons spent all of it in the caravan park with their parents and without the family boat.

1. Mr DiRago is Mr Galea's friend. He made a statement saying that he made a call to the Blairgowrie Caravan Park after Mr Galea had told him about what happened. He said he was looking for accommodation at that time also. On 7 November 2011, he called the caravan park and recorded the conversation on his mobile phone. He spoke with Mr Hartnett but did not tell him the conversation was being recorded.
2. In his statement, he says that he asked about accommodation for a family of four with a 16 to 17 foot caravan in January. He said that Mr Hartnett asked "a family of what?" He replied two adults and two children and Mr Hartnett said there were a couple of sites available. Mr Hartnett then asked about the ages of the children. Mr DiRago said they were 19 and 14. Mr DiRago's statement then says:

Ross Hartnett then proceeded to put me off the idea of staying at his caravan park saying that it wouldn't suit my children because his demographics were young families with young children and then recommended we try other caravan parks in the area and even named some. He stressed that we would need to be present when my kids were in the park which wouldn't be a problem for us as we do everything together when on holidays.

This conversation left me a little bewildered given that I met Ross Hartnett's requirements and he had a couple of sites available but upon mention of my families (sic) demographics he became reluctant and not interested in my staying there. At the end of it all I did feel discriminated against.

1. Attached to the statement was, what was said to be, a complete transcript of the conversation.
2. Mr DiRago did not attend the hearing to give evidence as he was too unwell to do so. Mr Galea said that he was sitting next to Mr DiRago when the call was made and the record of what Mr Galea said was accurate. He produced a copy of the recording.
3. I directed that Mr Hartnett be given an opportunity to listen to the recording over the lunch break and that I would then listen to it in the presence of the parties. That was done.
4. Mr Hartnett said that he thought he recalled this enquiry as the man calling referred to himself having cancer and wanting a holiday with his family on the beach. The transcript also failed to include his invitation to the caller to call back if he could not find accommodation elsewhere. Mr Hartnett's position was that the recording and transcript were incomplete as these two matters were not mentioned.
5. Mr Hartnett said that the caller he understood to be Mr DiRago said he wanted to be on the beach and that, as his caravan park is some 500 metres from the beach, he suggested that Mr DiRago try other sites. He provided names of other locations to try which were on the beach. He said that the caller should come back to him if he had no luck. When he referred to the caravan park not being right, he meant that it was away from the foreshore where most of the other kids will be.
6. Mr Hartnett said that he asks about ages so he can fit the clients into an area with similar aged families. His evidence was that he was talking about the 14 year old when he mentioned supervision.
7. The transcript is consistent with what is set out at paragraph [61] but it also includes the following, after the suggestion to try two other locations:

DiRago Ok, yeah ok I'll try them but just that I like the idea of Blairgowrie being quiet um, not . . .

Hartnett Yeah, that's right. Yes, that is well definitely very, very quite (sic). Does your son have a car at all or not?

DiR Um, yeah he'll have car yeah. He'll be coming up

DiR Yeah, yeah he'll have a car yeah. It will be my car and his.

1. Yep I see uh ha. I would, we don't have many teenagers here at all

1. I just feel it mightn't be the right park for you so that's what I'm more or less saying to you. It's gotta be something which they gonna enjoy themselves with and you'd have to be there all the time when they're there.

1. Mmm ahhh anyway I'll leave you to have a look around umm

1. If it were not for the fact that Mr Hartnett largely agreed that the transcript is accurate, I would have given it little weight. The fact that Mr DiRago was unable to give evidence about what was said and to confirm the contents is one reason to treat such evidence with caution. Another source of concern is the fact that Mr Hartnett was clearly being set up and it was unfair (and potentially unlawful) to record the conversation without his permission. However, in view of Mr Hartnett's evidence about his own recollection of the telephone call, I have taken it into account.

1. It is difficult to be certain about exactly what was said by Mr Hartnett to Mr & Mrs Galea about their sons. However, taking into account the evidence heard, the reactions of Mr & Mrs Galea and the call to Mr Hartnett five minutes after their departure, I am inclined to the view that Mr & Mrs Galea's account of what was said by Mr Hartnett about their sons and supervision is more accurate. Taking into account the material contained in the transcript of the call with Mr DiRago, which is largely undisputed by Mr Hartnett, it seems more likely than not that the mix of people in the park and what the young people would be doing was referred to in the discussion with Mr & Mrs Galea. Given the discussion with Mr DiRago, I consider that Mr Hartnett sought information about the Galea sons to help him decide whether they would be suitable for the park. I do not accept that the only reason for refusing the booking concerned the boat, its size and whether it would be brought.
2. I am satisfied that Mr Hartnett did say words to the effect that his park would not be for them, being Mr & Mrs Galea and their two young adult sons. Leaving aside Mr Hartnett's motive, on his own evidence, he believed that the caravan park would not be suitable for the Galea family because he thought that the sons would not enjoy spending all of the holiday with their parents and without the boat. I am satisfied that was a substantial reason for him refusing to take the booking and that means that Mr Hartnett refused to provide accommodation to Mr Galea on the basis of his parental status.
3. Section 53 of the EO Act is concerned with circumstances where there is an agreement for accommodation to be provided. The evidence does not support a conclusion that there was such an agreement for accommodation at any time and so section 53 does not arise in this case. The discussions on 29 October 2011 concerned the terms on which accommodation would be offered, and so section 52 of the EO Act may be considered. Similarly, section 44 arises because the offering of accommodation is a service.
4. I am satisfied that a substantial reason for Mr Hartnett refusing to provide accommodation to Mr Galea, was because he intended to bring his two sons aged 18 and 21 on the holiday. That amounts to direct discrimination and a breach of sections 52(a) and 44(1)(a) of the EO Act.

1. Mr Galea told the Tribunal that he estimated he had used a full tank of petrol for the trip from Reservoir to Blairgowrie on 29 October 2011 and there was wear and tear on the car. He claimed $90.
2. Mr Hartnett did not dispute the amount claimed.
3. I am satisfied that the car trip was wasted. While Mr Hartnett may prefer not to take telephone bookings, he risked this loss being claimed by requiring Mr Galea to attend the caravan park personally before he would consider taking the booking.
4. I will award the $90 claimed.

1. In his witness statement, Mr Galea said that on Friday 28 October 2011, he cancelled an arrangement he had made to work on the Saturday.
2. Before the Tribunal was as letter written by Santino Stancati which said in part:

On the 29/10/11 Jim Galea cancelled work scheduled for the 29/10/11 at (address) to attend to personal matters. . . Jim is paid an hourly rate of $65 per hour and would work 8-10 hours a day. All works are done on weekends only.

1. When asked about the missed work, and whether it could be made up later such as on the Sunday or another weekend, Mr Galea said he believed he had worked the following weekend on both days. It appeared he had other commitments on Sunday 30 October 2011. He said he had not told Mr Hartnett he was forfeiting a day's work to come on the Saturday because it was none of Mr Hartnett's business.
2. Later in the hearing, the topic of Mr Galea's lost work came up again. He told the Tribunal that he was doing handyman/building work on a renovation for Mr Stancati. Mr Stancati is his brother in law. He said that he keeps a log of his work and payments he is due and, when his sister and brother in law resolve their dispute with their builder, he will be paid. He has not been paid to date. If no payment is received by his sister and brother in law, he does not know what will happen in respect of his work.
3. The claim for lost wages is dismissed as the loss is hypothetical and so Mr Galea has not proven that any loss was incurred.

Lost opportunity of finding alternative accommodation

1. Mr Galea's evidence was that, before first speaking to Mr Hartnett on 24 October 2011, he had tried 15 other locations for accommodation and none had any available for the preferred period. In cross-examination he said that, on 29 October 2011, on the way home he and Mrs Galea looked at three other caravan parks. One was closed, the other had no accommodation available and the third was a scout camping ground. The third place had sites available, but it was said to be more like an adventure park than a caravan park. It did not have facilities such as a laundry. They did not make a booking. Mr Galea said that they were not interested in a foreshore caravan park as suggested by Mr Hartnett. They preferred one over the road and a street in from the main road.
2. Mr Hartnett suggested that there was alternative accommodation available on the Peninsula for early January 2012. He produced no evidence of that, other than to refer to the scout camping ground. There was no evidence that there was any accommodation available at a foreshore caravan park.
3. In order to award an amount under this head, Mr Galea would have to prove that there was accommodation available which he would have booked between 24 and 29 October 2011 had he known that he could not secure accommodation at the Blairgowrie Caravan Park. No such evidence was produced and so the claim for loss of opportunity of finding alternative accommodation is dismissed.

1. Mr Galea told the Tribunal that he was upset on 29 October 2011 and in the days after. He said that they knew they would not get any accommodation for that period and that the Blairgowrie Caravan Park had been their last chance to go away together. The fact that they were not going away spoilt Christmas Day. They spent the leave period doing day trips and were unable to use their caravan. With the booking not going ahead, their chance of a holiday was lost. He said that their holiday for the next year should be at Mr Hartnett's cost.
2. Mr Hartnett says that the main problem is that the distress and humiliation were caused more by the press coverage of the complaint. Mr Hartnett said he had suffered from that coverage too. Mr Hartnett had assumed that Mr Galea had contacted the press about the case, but Mr Galea said that was not so. The Tribunal file shows that a request to inspect the file was made by the Herald Sun newspaper and the article in question was then published. In my view, Mr Hartnett cannot be held responsible for additional distress, humiliation or embarrassment arising from the article.
3. I am satisfied that it is appropriate to award an amount to Mr Galea for the distress caused by Mr Hartnett's refusal to provide accommodation. Had Mr Hartnett not discriminated against Mr Galea in the way I have found occurred, he would have had the planned holiday with his wife and sons. While the accommodation would have been a cost to the family, I accept that the holiday together was important to Mr Galea. I note that, as Mr Galea is the sole applicant, it is only the injury to his feelings that I can consider in making this award.
4. The starting position in relation to awards for prohibited discrimination for injury to feelings (also referred to as non-economic loss), is that the amount should not be minimal, as that would trivialise or diminish respect for the public policy to which the EO Act gives effect. On the other hand, awards ought not be excessive, as that would also damage respect for that public policy.[3]
5. Mr Galea handed to the Tribunal and Mr Hartnett materials headed "Federal Discrimination Law - 7 Damages and Remedies which included references to cases where awards ranged between $750 and $40,000 for non-economic loss. It appears that document is a publication of the Australian Human Rights Commission and was created in or around 2009. Mr Hartnett was given an opportunity to review its contents before the hearing was concluded.
6. Some of the cases summarised in those materials concern sexual harassment. Others concern pregnancy or family responsibility related discrimination in the context of an employment relationship.[4] The circumstances of those cases are so different to the matter here, that I have set them to one side.
7. The substantial award of $40,000 mentioned above, was based in part on evidence that the applicant's severe depressive illness was contributed to by racial discrimination.[5] In other cases, awards in the range of $5,000 to $12,000 have been made where there is medical evidence about the extent of the injury suffered.[6] Here there is no medical evidence which would support similar awards.
8. There were three cases discussed where awards of between $1,500 and $8,000 were made in relation to discrimination against persons who were accompanied by assistance dogs and the discrimination occurred in the context of the provision of services.[7]
9. In some of the cases referred to, an award of aggravated or exemplary damages was made. The purpose of such awards are to address circumstances where the respondent behaved in a high handed, malicious, insulting or oppressive manner. Exemplary damages are considered appropriate to make an award which is more punitive than compensatory in character. I do not consider the circumstances here warrant either of those forms of award.
10. Mr Galea also drew my attention to a decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of NSW in Johnson v Free Spirit Management Pty Ltd (No 2).[8] In that case, the 18 year old applicant was awarded $5,000 after it found that the respondent caravan park had discriminated against him when it applied a rule that prevented him from having free movement in the park, on the basis of his appearance as a teenager. As I understand the circumstances of that case, the rule was applied to the applicant for a period of around 12 days, so the humiliation he experienced was felt over that time.
11. On the question of duration of discrimination, in another case, the sum of $7,500 was awarded in relation to five instances of racial discrimination.[9]
12. Mr Galea suggested a figure of around $7,000 for this head of loss. Mr Hartnett did not make submissions about the quantum.
13. What the above cases show is that it is difficult to make an assessment about the value of injured feelings and to compare one set of circumstances to another.
14. As noted earlier, the cost of the accommodation at the caravan park would have been $930 for three weeks. At the hearing, Mr Galea said that he wished for Mr Hartnett to pay for the family's next holiday. I understood that to indicate the emotional value of what had been lost. I have noted that Mr Galea's evidence was that the family spent time together and had day trips over the holiday period and so infer that some of the enjoyment he had anticipated was in fact experienced, although not in the preferred way.
15. I consider that an appropriate amount to award in the circumstances of this case is $1,000. That amount is significant enough for Mr Hartnett and the broader community to appreciate the seriousness of discrimination of this kind.
16. For these reasons, I will make an order for Mr Hartnett to pay Mr Galea the sum of $1,000 plus the $90 referrable to the wasted travel to Blairgowrie.

[1] See section 6 which sets out the list of attributes on the basis of which discrimination is prohibited

[2] See sections 7, 8 and 10 of the EO Act which define discrimination and direct discrimination and deal with motive

[3] Hall v A A Sheiban Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 72; (1989) 20 FCR 217

[4] For example Rispoli v Merck Sharpe & Dohme (Australia) Pty Ltd [2003] FMCA 160; Dare v Hurley [2005] FMCA 844

[5] Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd [2008] FCAFC 69

[6] For example Mayer v Australian Nuclear Science & Technology Organisation [2003] FMCA 209 ($5,000) and Commonwealth v Evans [2004] FCA 654 (reduced from the original award of $25,000 to $12,000 on appeal)

[7] Sheehan v Tin Can Bay Country Club [2002] FMCA 95 ($1,500); Haar v Maldon Nominees [2000] FMCA 5; (2000) 184 ALR 83 ($3,000) and Forrest v Queensland Health [2007] FCA 936; (2007) 161 FCR 152 ($8,000 - six incidents in total)

[8] [2011] NSWADT 29

[9] Campbell v Kirstenfeldt [2008] FMCA 1356