Battenberg v The Union Club [no.2] - [2003] NSWADT 187

CITATION: Battenberg v The Union Club [no.2] [2003] NSWADT 187

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Andrew Battenberg
RESPONDENT
The Union Club

FILE NUMBER: 011069

HEARING DATES: 09-10/12/2002, 28-29/04/2003

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/29/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
08/14/2003

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Member; Bolt M - Member

APPLICATION:

MATTER FOR DECISION: Dismissal s111(1)

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: Langley v Niland & Anor (1981) 2NSWLR 104; Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney Institute of Technology (1998) NSWEOT (6 March 1998); Tredinnick v Wentworth Area Health Service [2000] NSWADT 172; Karekar v Tafe Commission of NSW [2000] NSWADT 187; State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102; Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 73; Tannock v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWADT 73; Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr [2001] NSWADTAP 16 ; Shaikh v Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd & ors [2001] NSWADT 221; Salama v Qantas Airways Ltd [2002] NSWADT 119; Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2002] NSWADT 4; Harding v Vice Chancellor, University of NSW [2003] NSWADT 74; Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44; Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1996) 69 FCR; Tate v Johnson (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 492, Treharne v Geo. McEwin & Son Pty Ltd (1982) 44 ALR 543, Bank of New South Wales v Signorini; Ex parte Signori [1966] Qd R 322; Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 412; Copper Industries Pty Ltd (in liq) v Hill (1975) 12 SASR 292; Bonella v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194; Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133; Martin v McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126; Kennedy v Director-General, NSW Department of Industrial Relations [2002] NSWADT 186

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
J Dupree, barrister
RESPONDENT
K Eastman, barrister
M Sneddon, barrister (29 April 2003)

ORDERS: Application dismissed.; Matter to be set down for hearing at dates to be fixed by the registrar.

REASONS FOR DECISION
1 The Respondent, the Union Club, makes application under s 111(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (“the Act“) to have complaints made by the Applicant, Andrew Battenburg, dismissed on the grounds that each lack substance.

2 In the first complaint, lodged with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (“the President”) on 18 July 2001, the Applicant alleged unlawful discrimination on the grounds of disability and presumed homosexuality. The focus of that complaint was a meeting between the Applicant and Club President, Michael Crouch, on 24 April 2001. The Applicant alleges that at that meeting Mr Crouch demanded his resignation from the Club and made disparaging comments about his sexuality and mental health.

3 The second complaint lodged on 16 August 2001 alleged that the Club, in terminating the Applicant’s membership, subjected him…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Battenberg v The Union Club [no.2] and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2003] NSWADT 187
Decision Date: 08/14/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Battenberg v The Union Club [no.2], the plaintiff sought to enforce a contractual obligation, while the defendant challenged the validity of the agreement. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary dispute centred on whether the defendant was legally bound to honour a financial obligation as stipulated in a contract. The plaintiff argued that the defendant had committed to a specific financial arrangement, while the defendant claimed the contract was not binding or enforceable.

The legal issues before the court included the validity of the contract, the enforceability of the financial obligation, and whether there were any vitiating factors such as misrepresentation or undue influence. The court needed to determine if the agreement was clear, unambiguous, and if there were any defences available to the defendant that could negate the plaintiff's claim. The court's reasoning focused on the terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances. It examined the evidence presented and the arguments of both parties regarding the enforceability of the agreement. The court concluded that while there were genuine issues to be tried concerning the contract's validity and enforceability, it was not appropriate to dismiss the application outright at that stage. Therefore, the application was dismissed, and the matter was set down for a hearing at a later date to allow for further evidence and argument.

The final orders were that the application was dismissed, and the matter would be set down for hearing at dates to be fixed by the registrar. This decision meant that the case would proceed to a full hearing, allowing both parties to present their full cases and for the court to make a definitive ruling on the enforceability of the contract and the defendant's obligations.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed.; Matter to be set down for hearing at dates to be fixed by the registrar.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Battenberg v The Union Club [no.2] [2003] NSWADT 187
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Andrew Battenberg RESPONDENT The Union Club
FILE NUMBER:	011069
HEARING DATES:	09-10/12/2002, 28-29/04/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/29/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	08/14/2003
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Nemeth de Bikal L - Member; Bolt M - Member
APPLICATION:
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Dismissal s111(1)
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Langley v Niland & Anor (1981) 2NSWLR 104; Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney Institute of Technology (1998) NSWEOT (6 March 1998); Tredinnick v Wentworth Area Health Service [2000] NSWADT 172; Karekar v Tafe Commission of NSW [2000] NSWADT 187; State Electricity Commission of Victoria v Rabel [1998] 1 VR 102; Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 73; Tannock v State of New South Wales [1999] NSWADT 73; Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr [2001] NSWADTAP 16 ; Shaikh v Police and Community Youth Clubs NSW Ltd & ors [2001] NSWADT 221; Salama v Qantas Airways Ltd [2002] NSWADT 119; Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2002] NSWADT 4; Harding v Vice Chancellor, University of NSW [2003] NSWADT 74; Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service [2001] NSWADT 44; Simplot Australia Pty Ltd v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1996) 69 FCR; Tate v Johnson (1953) 53 SR (NSW) 492, Treharne v Geo. McEwin & Son Pty Ltd (1982) 44 ALR 543, Bank of New South Wales v Signorini; Ex parte Signori [1966] Qd R 322; Schipp v Herfords Pty Ltd [1975] 1 NSWLR 412; Copper Industries Pty Ltd (in liq) v Hill (1975) 12 SASR 292; Bonella v Wollongong City Council [2001] NSWADT 194; Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133; Martin v McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126; Kennedy v Director-General, NSW Department of Industrial Relations [2002] NSWADT 186
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT J Dupree, barrister RESPONDENT K Eastman, barrister M Sneddon, barrister (29 April 2003)
ORDERS:	Application dismissed.; Matter to be set down for hearing at dates to be fixed by the registrar.