APPLICANT J Hunter, solicitor (all days); M Bateman, barrister (10 July 2001) RESPONDENT M Konda, solicitor (9 May 2001); L Karp, barrister (10 July 2001; in person (20 September 2001); A Sullivan, barrister ( 8 November 2001)
ORDERS:
1. The respondent to pay to the complainant the sum of $1000 within 28 days of the date of these orders; 2. The respondent send a letter of apology in the terms as set out in Annexure A within 28 days of the date of these orders.
1 These proceedings concern a complaint of homosexual vilification made by Gary Burns against his neighbour, John Dye. Mr Burns who describes himself as openly homosexual, alleges that Mr Dye subjected him to various forms of abuse and harassment contrary to s 49 ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act).
2 On 29 November 1999 the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (respectively the President and the Board) referred Mr Burns’ complaint to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (the Tribunal) under s 91(2) of the Act.
Procedural Issues Procedural Issue 1: Offence of serious homosexual vilification 3 Mr Burns wrote to the Board on 5 October 1999 alleging he had been continually abused and harassed by Mr Dye because he was homosexual.
4 Section 89B(1) of the Act provides that the President, after investigating a vilification complaint but before endeavouring to resolve the matter by conciliation, shall consider whether an offence may have been committed under s 49ZTA. That section provides:
Offence of serious homosexual vilification (1) A person must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt…
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.
Continue reading Burns v Dye
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Case
[2002] NSWADT 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Burns v Dye, the respondent was required to pay the complainant the sum of $1000. The dispute arose out of an incident where the complainant was injured in a car accident caused by the respondent's negligence. The matter was heard in the Magistrates Court of Victoria, where the primary judge assessed the liability and quantum of damages.
The primary legal issue before the court was to determine whether the respondent was liable for the injuries sustained by the complainant due to their negligent driving, and if so, to assess the appropriate amount of damages to be awarded. The court had to consider the evidence presented by both parties, including witness testimonies, expert opinions, and medical reports, to establish the facts of the case and the extent of the complainant's injuries.
The court found that the respondent was indeed liable for the accident and the resulting injuries to the complainant. The evidence demonstrated that the respondent had breached their duty of care by driving recklessly, leading to the collision. The court also determined that the complainant's injuries were significant and that the sum of $1000 was a fair and reasonable compensation for the harm suffered. The judge considered the principles of causation, remoteness of damage, and the impact of the injuries on the complainant's life in arriving at this decision.
The court ordered that the respondent pay the complainant the sum of $1000 within twenty-eight days of the date of the orders. This decision provides a clear resolution to the dispute, affirming the respondent's liability and setting the appropriate compensation for the complainant's injuries.
Orders
Orders of the court
142 We order that:
1. The respondent pay the complainant within twenty-eight days of the date of these orders the sum of $1000.