Man claims restaurant's hotpot for two policy is discriminatory

A solo diner has accused a downtown Wellington restaurant of "discrimination" after discovering he would need to pay the price for two customers to order hotpot.

Taiming Zhang had previously been able to purchase hotpot for one at the Asian fusion restaurant Red Hill and felt the new “minimum of two diners” policy was discriminatory.

The heated dispute resulted in a claim of "indirect discrimination" being filed with the Human Rights Review Tribunal.

Hotpot is traditionally a social way of dining where food was cooked in a communal simmering pot of flavoured broth.

Zhang accepted Red Hill did not decline to provide hotpot to him due to his marital status but he claimed its charging policy had the effect of “treating him differently” to a married couple and was “indirectly discriminatory.”

He told the tribunal it was less likely a single person would dine with another person prepared to share the cost of the meal.

In an affidavit, the restaurant denied its actions were discriminatory, saying the policy applied to everyone and was not limited to customers with a particular marital status.

Rising costs meant it was "not economical" for Red Hill to prepare a hotpot for one paying customer only, it said, but admitted it had previously allowed it.

The restaurant appealed to strike out the claim on the basis that it was "frivolous", as the policy was common to many restaurants and brought by Zhang to “annoy or irritate” Red Hill after the change of policy.

In its decision, the tribunal said the essence of the claim was concerning the minimum charge for a serving of hot pot and how large it should be.

"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."

Any discrimination alleged was "merely theoretical" and did not give rise to material disadvantage, the tribunal found.

Zhang’s claim “lacked the seriousness necessary for it to proceed to trial”, said the tribunal, striking it out on the grounds that it was frivolous and disclosed no reasonable cause of action.

"To allow the claim to proceed would be an abuse of the tribunal’s processes," the decision read.