Lau’s complaint was referred to the Tasmanian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. He represented himself at the hearing in March, appearing via video link, and won.

Loading

The tribunal ordered Mona to either close the Ladies Lounge, remove it, reform it, or allow men to enter.

Arguing that permitting men to enter the Ladies Lounge was counter to its ethos, Kaechele opted to close the space and appeal to the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

In quashing the tribunal’s decision on Friday, Marshall found it had made several errors of fact and law, among them a “mischaracterisation of what the Ladies Lounge was designed to promote and how that was intended to be achieved”.

Section 26 of Tasmania’s Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 allows discrimination to occur so long as it is used to promote equal opportunity for a disadvantaged group of people.

Mona’s lawyer, Catherine Scott, argued in court last week that the Ladies Lounge promoted equal opportunity for women by creating a “flipped universe” that allows men to experience what it’s like to be discriminated against, invoking the spirit of places such as historical ladies’ lounges and current elite men’s clubs.

Lau’s barrister in the appeal, high-profile Hobart lawyer Greg Barns, acting pro bono, had argued that the Ladies Lounge could not be exempt under section 26 because it did not address the ongoing inequities faced by women in any definitive or substantive way.

In response, Scott cited the Australian Government Status of Women Report Card 2024, which was released in March, as evidence of women’s ongoing disadvantage.

Acting Justice Marshall echoed this in his judgment, writing: “The Report Card shows the entrenched disadvantage experienced by Australian women compared with men. Read as a whole it amply demonstrates current societal disadvantage.”

He added that there was no need for the Ladies Lounge to achieve “substantive equality between men and women” to be granted the exclusion afforded by Section 26.

“It is sufficient that the arrangement promotes equal opportunity for women who as a gender are disadvantaged in society because of that gender,” the judge wrote.

‘The men are a little hysterical’

For Kaechele, this was cause for elation: “The judge sided with us, in that section 26 provides protections for the Ladies Lounge. It falls under the exception in the Anti-Discrimination Act, and that means that the Ladies Lounge is exceptional,” she said.

“We’ll see how the men take it. The men are a little hysterical. I’m a bit concerned they’re troubled by the power of women. They may appeal, but they’re not appealing to me.”

Lau’s barrister, Greg Barns, was approached for comment but did not respond in time for publication. He left the court immediately after the judgment without addressing the media.

Catherine Scott noted that the battle wasn’t entirely over, but felt optimistic about the likely outcome.

“The tribunal is required to make a fresh decision in accordance with what the court says they should have done, and there’s so much guidance in [the judgment] on what they should have done that we have a degree of confidence of the likely result,” she said.

So what next for the Ladies Lounge?

“There are plans in the works, and some kind of celebration,” Kaechele said. “We’ll definitely be inviting women to come and celebrate with us.”

A cultural guide to going out and loving your city. Sign up to our Culture Fix newsletter here.