ZANGARI and ST JOHN AMBULANCE SERVICE [2010] WASAT 6 (25 January 2010)

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34; (1938) 60 CLR 336

Caswell v Powell Duffryn Associated Collieries Ltd [1940] AC 152

Chew and Director General of the Department of Education and Training [2006] WASAT 248

Cocks McNish v Biundo [2004] WASCA 194

Collard v Department of Housing and Works [2004] WAEOT 13

Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2007] WASAT 31

Dare v Hurley [2005] FMCA 844

Department of Health v Arumugun [1988] VicRp 42; [1988] VR 319

Dowling v Bowie [1952] HCA 63; (1952) 86 CLR 136

Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1767

Garity v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [1999] EOC 92­966

Glasgow City Council v Zafar [1997] UKHL 54; [1998] 2 All ER 953

Heikkinen and Edith Cowan University [2007] WASAT 321

IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; (1997) 191 CLR 1

Mooney v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 107

Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92

Sharma v Legal Aid (QLD) [2002] FCAFC 196

Soelberg (formerly Van Droffelaar) and Commissioner of Police [2008] WASAT 305(S)

State of Victoria v Macedonian Teachers' Association of Victoria Inc [1999] FCA 1287; (1999) 91 FCR 47

Summerville and Department of Education and Training and Others [2006] WASAT 368(S)

Waters v Public Transport Corporation [1991] HCA 49; (1991) 173 CLR 349

178 The way in which an applicant defines and identifies a service is a critical question of fact in discrimination proceedings. The applicant in a race discrimination proceeding such as this, must articulate with precision what she says the service is (see IW; Rainsford v Victoria [1007] FCA 1059 and Waters. In her outline of submissions for preliminary hearing (at [9] - [14]), in her statement of issues, facts and contentions (at [16]) and in her closing submissions (at [34]), Dr Zangari describes the relevant service as 'ambulance and first aid services or facilities'.

1. A doctor in Dr Zangari's position owed a duty of care to her patient, [Mr L] which required a 'reasonable' standard of care and that this is a single comprehensive duty that applies to diagnosis, advice and treatment. Rogers v Whitaker [1992] HCA 58; (1992) 175 CLR 479.

204 The Tribunal has also considered the issue of costs in discrimination proceedings in the following decisions: Chew at [84 - [85]; Commissioner for Equal Opportunity and Alcoa of Australia Ltd [2007] WASAT 317; Summerville and Department of Education and Training and Others [2006] WASAT 368(S).

(1952) 86 CLR 136

(2003) 217 CLR 92

(1999) 91 FCR 47

(1997) 191 CLR 1

(1991) 173 CLR 349

(1938) 60 CLR 336

(1992) 175 CLR 479

(1988) 14 NSWLR 252

(1978) 22 ALR 128