EIX20 v WA (No 2) [2025] FCA 28
A man was detained in a youth correction facility, often in isolation. He sought to amend discrimination claims against WA to cover denial of educational access because of his aboriginality. The issue became whether the man had been denied ‘services’4.
Banks-Smith J allowed the amendment. The definition of ‘services’ was inclusive, the legislation was remedial, ‘services’ may arise under an obligation, prisoner programs may involve ‘services’5, and the final answer may depend on facts yet to be found6. This case shows that ‘services’ takes its meaning from its context, including whether the statute is remedial, and that care is needed in the absence of facts.
This principle is from Episode 118 of interpretation NOW!
Footnotes:
4 s 4 definition read with s 24 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).
5 Rainsford [2008] FCAFC 31 [9] meaning of service ‘is not simple to resolve’.
6 IW 191 CLR 1 (11), Rainsford [2007] FCA 1059 [79], Waters 173 CLR 349 (404).