Limitations regarding the use of quotes
The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
The complainants, Mr Francey and Ms Meeuwissen, alleged that they had been discriminated against on the grounds of disability by the defendant because a nightclub within its hotel was not smoke-free. Ms Meeuwissen had cystic fibrosis - her doctor recommended that she avoid environmental tobacco smoke. On 18 March 1995 she was accompanied by Mr Francey to a nightclub within the hotel but they were forced to leave due to environmental tobacco smoke causing Ms Meeuwissen to become asthmatic.
The Commission upheld the claim, finding that the defendant had unlawfully discriminated against the complainants on the grounds of disability (and status as an associate of a person with a disability), because failing to provide a smoke-free environment effectively denied the complainants access to the premises and to goods and services. The Commission ordered that the defendant pay the complainants damages, and requested further written submissions on the other orders that it should make. For the further decision, see: Meeuwissen v. Hilton Hotels of Australia Pty Ltd.