Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
The Australian Centre for Disability Law has been taken to court over explosive allegations of disability discrimination, after an employee allegedly told a distressed individual that “people with your mental health condition are not welcome here”.
An individual has taken the Australian Centre for Disability Law (ACDL) to court, alleging the specialist community legal service discriminated against them by refusing to provide legal assistance on the basis of their mental health disability.
The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (FCFCOA) was told that on 12 March 2024, Hani El Kassir contacted the specialist disability legal centre by email seeking legal assistance over Victims Support applications rejected by NSW Victims Services, as well as a previous unsuccessful claim made in 2003.
Less than two weeks later, a solicitor contacted him, advising the centre could not assist as the matter fell “outside” the scope of its funded services, and referred him to alternative legal assistance providers.
However, El Kassir alleged that, during a telephone conversation several days later with an ACDL solicitor, discriminatory comments were made about his diagnosed mental health condition.
According to his claim, he was told that “people with your mental health condition are not welcome here”, prompting him to lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
The ACDL denied the allegations, insisting the solicitor identified by El Kassir never made the alleged comments or “spoke with the applicant” by telephone, and that “no solicitor-client relationship was formed”.
The day after the alleged telephone conversation, the ACDL emailed El Kassir advising that it was unable to assist with his legal matters, instead referring him to alternative legal service providers and requesting further information about an earlier email that had reportedly failed to reach the organisation.
Over the following weeks, El Kassir continued to challenge the decision, repeatedly seeking an explanation for why assistance had been refused before escalating his concerns to the centre’s CEO, expressing dissatisfaction with the way his matter had been handled.
However, the court noted that throughout this correspondence, which continued for more than two weeks, El Kassir made no reference to, or complaint about, the alleged discriminatory remarks he claimed were made during the telephone conversation.
Twelve days after El Kassir’s final email, the ACDL responded, advising that it was unable to assist because, as a “small community legal centre”, demand for its services “consistently exceeded capacity”.
The centre also informed him that it did not handle appeals relating to Victims Services decisions – the very matters for which he had sought legal assistance.
Before commencing court proceedings, El Kassir lodged complaints with both the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (OLSC) and the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC).
However, the complaint was closed in May 2024 by the OLSC, which found the legal centre was “under no obligation” to act for El Kassir or provide legal advice, leaving “insufficient basis” to take further action.
Presiding Judge Cleary also observed that the complaint lodged with the OLSC made no reference to the alleged discriminatory comments said to have been made during the telephone conversation.
El Kassir later lodged a complaint with the AHRC, alleging disability discrimination in the provision of services and, for the first time, asserting that discriminatory remarks were made during the telephone call.
However, the AHRC ultimately terminated the complaint on 11 March 2026, finding the decision not to provide assistance was not related to disability but instead stemmed from the centre’s limited capacity and the fact that the matter fell outside its funding scope.
As the matter had already been terminated, El Kassir was required to obtain the court’s permission before pursuing any further legal proceedings.
Based on the evidence presented, Judge Cleary found the ACDL’s refusal to provide legal assistance to El Kassir was not linked to his disability, but instead was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons.
“The evidence before the court is clear and unambiguous. The respondent’s decision to refuse the applicant legal assistance was not made ‘because of’, or on the ground of, the applicant’s disability,” Judge Cleary said.
“Rather, the evidence demonstrates that the refusal was based on non-discriminatory considerations, namely that the assistance sought fell outside the respondent’s funding scope as a community legal service provider.”
Judge Cleary also raised concerns about the alleged remarks made during the phone call, finding it unnecessary to determine whether they had actually been made, given that the claims were absent from earlier complaints and court pleadings.
“I note that the purported contemporaneous file note relied upon by the applicant as evidence of the phone call was not raised with the AHRC or the OLSC and was not referred to or pleaded in the originating application which commenced these proceedings,” Judge Cleary said.
“I do not consider it is necessary to determine whether or not the alleged discriminatory comments were made during the 25 March 2024 phone call.”
Although the court recognised the seriousness of the disability discrimination allegations, it found it was “not satisfied” that El Kassir had presented evidence capable of establishing a reasonably arguable case of unlawful disability discrimination against ACDL.
Judge Cleary dismissed the originating application, refusing the applicant leave to proceed under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act and bringing the discrimination case to an end.
Despite the respondent’s successful defence, the court made no order as to costs, leaving each party to bear their own legal expenses.
