Mulligan v Virgin Australia Airlines Pty Ltd [2015] FCAFC 130

DISCRIMINATION – where the appellant claimed to require an assistance animal due to his disabilities – whether the primary judge erred in not finding that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the appellant under ss 24 and 32 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) (‘DDA’) by refusing to allow the appellant’s dog to accompany him in the aircraft cabin – whether the primary judge misconstrued reg 256A of the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 (Cth) (‘CARs’) – whether the primary judge erred in concluding that instruments made under reg 256A of the CARs were prescribed laws under s 47(2) of the DDA – whether the primary judge misconstrued s 54A(5) of the DDA – whether the appellant’s dog was ‘trained’ for the purposes of s 9(2)(c) of the DDA – appropriate relief

Kate Eastman SC appeared for the Australian Human Rights Commission.