Brown v Bourke Bowling Club

[2012] NSWADT 248

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Brown v Bourke Bowling Club [2012] NSWADT 248

Hearing dates:

15, 16, 17 May 2012

Decision date:

29 November 2012

Jurisdiction:

Equal Opportunity Division

Before:

J Conley, Judicial Member
J Newman, Non-Judicial Member
P Smith, Non-Judicial Member

Decision:

1. The complaint is substantiated.

The Respondent is to pay the Applicant the sum of $8,000 within 28 days from the date of these reasons.

2. The respondent is to provide a written apology to the applicant for discriminating against her on the grounds of her Aboriginality within 28 days from the date of these reasons.

Catchwords:

Race Discrimination - Registered Clubs

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Cases Cited:

Qantas Airways v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69;
Burns v Laws (EOD) [2008] NSWADTAP 32; Chand v Rail Corporation of NSW (No2) [2009] NSWADTAP 27; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP5; Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge (No. 2) [2002] NSWADTAP6; Purvis v New South Wales [2003] HCA 62 (2003) 217 CLR 92; Hollows v Macquarie University [2009] NSWADT 23 (6 February 2009); Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service (2002) NSWADT 133; Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited [2000] NSWADT 31; Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness (2000) 49 NSWLR 262; Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 at 308; Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 503 at 543; Sharma v. QS Pty Ltd t/as KFC Punchbowl [2010] NSWADTAP 22

Category:

Principal judgment

Parties:

Patricia Brown (Applicant)
Bourke Bowling Club (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel
P Battley (Applicant)
Mr Dalzell (Respondent)
Legal Aid NSW (Applicant)
Lovett & Green Pty Ltd (Respondent)

File Number(s):

101108

Judgment

Background

1. Ms Patricia Brown is an Aboriginal woman. She alleges that the respondent the Bourke Bowling Club (the Club) is a Registered club and it discriminated against her on the grounds of her race, (her Aboriginality). It is alleged that the Club is vicariously liable for the acts of it's employees.

1. Ms Brown lodged a complaint on 9 March 2010 with the Anti-Discrimination Board (the ADB). As the complaint was unable to be resolved it was referred to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal).

1. Ms Brown previously made a claim of race discrimination to the Anti-Discrimination Board. The Deed of Release precluded the Respondent relying upon incidents of alleged misconduct by Ms Brown at the Club relating to the Deed.

The Procedure

1. The matter initially came before the Tribunal and the applicant sought and was granted an adjournment. The matter was then heard by the Tribunal over a period of three days. Affidavits of evidence were relied upon by the applicant and the respondent, which were adopted and admitted into evidence. Oral evidence was given by the applicant's and respondent's witnesses. At the request of the parties legal representatives, the Tribunal together with the legal representatives for both parties attended the site to view the layout of the respondent's premise.

The Applicant's Evidence

1. Ms Brown's evidence is that she has been a member of the…