Anderson v Thompson

[2001] NSWADT 11

CITATION:	Anderson v Thompson [2001] NSWADT 11
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Mary Anderson RESPONDENT Troy Thompson
FILE NUMBER:	001052
HEARING DATES:	11/01/2001
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	01/11/2001
DATE OF DECISION:	02/05/2001
BEFORE:	Ireland G - Judicial Member; Clayton S - Member; Lau L - Member
APPLICATION:	Racial - Vilification - Victimisation - Vilification - Racial
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Western Legal Service v Jones.
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT No Appearance
ORDERS:	1. Complaint of racial vilification substantiated; 2. Complaint of victimisation dismissed; 3. Respondent to pay the Applicant, by way of compensation for the racial vilification, an amount of $5,000

1 This enquiry has come to the Tribunal as a result of the reference to it by the Anti-Discrimination Board, under section 94(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act). The Board referred to the Tribunal a complaint made by Mrs Mary Anderson, on 11 January 2000, in which Mrs Anderson alleged that she had been discriminated against on the ground of racial vilification.

2 The Board also referred to a further claim of victimisation of Mrs Anderson by the respondent, Mr Thompson. In relation to the victimisation complaint, the Board suggested that there were two circumstances that gave rise to victimisation. One of those circumstances was the subject of a reference to Mr Thompson, back in May 2000, but the Board, in referring the complaint to the Tribunal for enquiry, did not include that complaint of victimisation as one of the grounds for enquiry.

3 The Board, however, referred to a complaint of victimisation which Mrs Anderson made to it, under cover of a letter of 20 September 2000, but that complaint was made after the Board had referred the original complaints of Mrs Anderson and Mr Thompson and, so far as the material supplied by the Board is concerned, it appears that the later complaint of victimisation had not been either investigated by the Board or referred by the Board to Mr Thompson. In these circumstances, the Tribunal considers that there is no basis for the Tribunal to consider this latter complaint of victimisation that was lodged with the Board on 20 September 2000.

4 The Tribunal has, therefore, confined its consideration of this enquiry to a complaint of racial vilification. In considering that complaint, the Board first had to consider whether the matter should proceed to a hearing today, in the absence of Mr Thompson. The Tribunal is always conscious of the need to ensure that parties, who have been referred under reference from the Board as a party to the enquiry, have had ample opportunity to appear before the Tribunal and to put their case to it.

5 In this enquiry, the Tribunal is satisfied that Mr Thompson, at all times during the investigation of the complaint by the Board and on the occasions when the Tribunal has sought to have the parties before it for the purposes of managing the preparation of the case for hearing,…