the Applicant v State of Victoria (Victoria Police)
What happened
The Applicant commenced proceedings against Victoria Police (Victoria Police) alleging breaches of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth). The allegations relate to an altercation in February 2018 and a subsequent complaint made by her partner to Victoria Police. The Applicant claimed Victoria Police failed to adequately investigate the complaint and discriminated against him due to his disability. Victoria Police sought to have parts of the Applicant’s amended points of claim struck out, arguing they didn’t establish a reasonable cause of action.
What was decided
The Federal Court allowed Victoria Police's application to strike out portions of the Applicant’s claims. The court found that Victoria Police was not providing a 'service' when investigating the complaint, as required under section 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act. The court noted the applicant's pleading wasn't well drafted but didn't prevent it from understanding the core argument. Further orders regarding the remaining points of claim will be determined in chambers.
What it means for employers
Employers providing services must ensure their actions don’t discriminate against individuals with disabilities. Investigating complaints and responding to incidents doesn’t automatically constitute a 'service' under anti-discrimination laws, but responses should still be fair and equitable. Clear communication of processes is important to avoid misunderstandings.
What it means for employees
Employees experiencing discrimination related to disability should understand the legal framework surrounding services provided by organisations. While investigations may not always equate to providing a service, there are avenues for redress if discriminatory practices occur. Seek legal advice if you believe your rights have been violated.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Send your details to Liquid Employment Lawyers
Liquid Employment Lawyers is a paid legal service and our referral partner, not free Fair Work advice. FairWork Mate may receive a referral fee from Liquid Legal. Tell them what has happened and a member of their team will call you back. For free general guidance, use our tools or call the Fair Work Ombudsman on 13 13 94.
Prefer to read first? About Liquid Employment Lawyers · Not sure if you need a lawyer? Read the legal help guides
Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
FairWork Mate AI
This is one decision. Pro reads all of them.
Free case pages cite the top 250 decisions. Pro opens the full Fair Work Commission and Federal Court library, cross-references your own situation against it, and cites the decision behind every answer — plus document upload, so it can read your letter or contract line by line. 150 questions a month, cancel anytime.
Renews monthly at A$29.99 until you cancel. By continuing you agree to our Terms.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.