Red Hill restaurant in Wellington has been taken to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
Red Hill restaurant in Wellington has been taken to the Human Rights Review Tribunal.
A solo diner in the market for a hotpot has taken action against a restaurant after he learned he would have to pay the price of two customers if he wanted the dish.
Taiming Zhang had previously enjoyed a hotpot for one at Wellington’s Red Hill and was aggrieved tofind the Chinese restaurant had since enforced a policy requiring “a minimum of two diners” to order the meal.
Zhang felt that was discriminatory and made a statement claim to the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT) alleging so.
Traditionally, a hotpot is a social dining experience where a variety of food is cooked in a communal simmering pot of flavored broth.
In a decision released yesterday by HRRT, it stated Zhang had claimed the restaurant’s policy amounted to indirect marital status discrimination.
While he accepted Red Hill did not decline to provide hotpot to him because he was single or that he was treated less favourably for that reason, he claimed the charging policy had the effect of treating him differently and was indirectly discriminatory.
Zhang told the tribunal it was less likely that a single person would be dining with another person who was prepared to share the cost of a hotpot meal.
But the restaurant denied its actions were discriminatory and said the policy applied to everyone and was not limited to customers with a particular marital status.
It applied to have Zhang’s claim struck out on the basis that it was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.
The claim was in relation to a hotpot dish at the restaurant.
The restaurant believed Zhang had brought the claim to “annoy or irritate” Red Hill after it changed its policy, and that the policy was common to many restaurants.
While it admitted it had previously allowed one paying customer to purchase a single portion of hotpot the restaurant told the tribunal that due to rising costs, it was no longer economical for Red Hill to prepare the dish for single diners only.
In its decision, which was made on the papers, the tribunal said the essence of the claim was about the minimum charge for a serving of hotpot and how large that serving should be.
It said Red Hill’s menu stated that the hotpot for the specified price was for a minimum of two people.
“The plain inference is that when hotpot is ordered the diner will receive sufficient food for two people in return for the price payable.
“If anyone wants to order that quantity of hotpot for that price, there is no prohibition preventing any diner from doing so. Had Red Hill simply set out the price for hotpot, no exception could be taken.”
The tribunal found any discrimination alleged was therefore merely theoretical and did not give rise to material disadvantage.
It ruled Zhang’s claim lacked the seriousness necessary for it to proceed to trial and struck it out on the grounds it was frivolous and that it disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
“To allow the claim to proceed would be an abuse of the tribunal’s processes,” the decision stated.
Tara Shaskey joined NZME in 2022 as a news director and Open Justice reporter. She has been a reporter since 2014 and previously worked at Stuff where she covered crime and justice, arts and entertainment, and Māori issues.
