Pending Appeal:
CITATION: Burns v Laws (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 47 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division PARTIES: APPLICANT
Gary Burns
RESPONDENT
John Laws
INTERVENOR
Attorney General of New South WalesFILE NUMBER: 051044 HEARING DATES: 16/02/2007, 14-15/03/2006, 27/03/2006 & 10/10/2006 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 23 October 2006
DATE OF DECISION:
1 March 2007BEFORE: Chesterman M - ADCJ (Deputy President); Mooney L - Non Judicial Member at 288; Quayle C - Non Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Vilification - Homosexual MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld)
Commonwealth Constitution
Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 (Vic)
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)CASES CITED: Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106
Bellino v Australian Broadcasting Commission (1996) 185 CLR 183
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Bropho v HREOC & Anor [2005] HCA Trans 9 (4 February 2005)
Bropho v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCAFC 16
Brown v Classification Review Board (1998) 82 FCR 225
Bryl v Kovacevic & Ors [1999] HREOCA 11
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Burns v Laws [2005] NSWADT 229
Burns v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWADT 267
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc & Ors v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284
Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427
Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261
Craig Williamson Pty Ltd v Barrowcliff [1915] VR 450
Deen v Lamb [2001] QADT 20
Dimozantos v The Queen (No 2) (1993) 178 CLR 122
Handyside Case, European Court of Human Rights (1976) Ser A No 24) 1 EHRR 737
He Kaw Te v R (1985) 157 CLR 523
Hellenic Council of NSW v Apoleski (No 1) [1995] NSWEOT (25/9/97)
IW v The City of Perth (1997) EOC 92-892; (1999) 91 ALJR 943
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kazak (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 35
Jones v Scully [2002] FCA 1080
Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150
Jones & Anor v The Bible Believers’ Church [2007] FCA 55
Jones & Anor v Western Aboriginal Legal Service [2000] NSWADTAP 28
Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2000] NSWADT 77
London Artists v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375
NSW Breeding & Racing Stables Pty Ltd v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales (2001) 53 NSWLR 559
R v Central Independent Television plc [1994] 3 All ER 641
R v Keegstra (1990) 61 CCC (3d) 1
Sunol v Collier [2006] NSWADTAP 51
Toben v Jones [2003] FCAFC 137
Veloskey & Ors v Karagiannis & Ors [2002] NSWADTAP 18
Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Action Group v Eldridge (1995) EOC 92-701
Wake v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1973] 1 NSWLR 43
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1993) 173 CLR 349
Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Jones & Anor [2000] NSWADT 102
Wheeler v Leicester City Council [1985] 1 AC 1054REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
RESPONDENT
D Rofe (16 February, 14, 15 and 27 March 2006)
No appearance on 10 October 2006
G Reynolds SC
P Hewitt, barristerORDERS: 1.…
Continue reading Burns v Laws (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Burns v Laws (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 47
- Case
- [2007] NSWADT 47
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Burns v Laws (No 2) involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Burns, and the defendant, Laws. The plaintiff sought to establish that the defendant had defamed him through a series of publications that included defamatory imputations relating to his sexual orientation. The court before which this case was heard was the Federal Court of Australia. The primary judge was Justice Edelman.
The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the defendant's publications were capable of carrying the imputations alleged by the plaintiff and whether those imputations were defamatory. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the imputations were substantially true and therefore protected from a defamation claim under the fair reporting doctrine. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff could establish that the defendant acted with actual malice, which is a requirement for a public figure or public official to succeed in a defamation claim.
The court found that the defendant's publications did carry the imputations alleged by the plaintiff, but these imputations were not defamatory. Justice Edelman concluded that the publications did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Furthermore, the court determined that the imputations were substantially true and thus protected under the fair reporting doctrine. The court also found that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant acted with actual malice. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. The question of costs was to be resolved in accordance with the directions given at paragraph [287] of the reasons for judgment.
The central legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the defendant's publications were capable of carrying the imputations alleged by the plaintiff and whether those imputations were defamatory. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the imputations were substantially true and therefore protected from a defamation claim under the fair reporting doctrine. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff could establish that the defendant acted with actual malice, which is a requirement for a public figure or public official to succeed in a defamation claim.
The court found that the defendant's publications did carry the imputations alleged by the plaintiff, but these imputations were not defamatory. Justice Edelman concluded that the publications did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Furthermore, the court determined that the imputations were substantially true and thus protected under the fair reporting doctrine. The court also found that the plaintiff did not establish that the defendant acted with actual malice. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint. The question of costs was to be resolved in accordance with the directions given at paragraph [287] of the reasons for judgment.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The complaint is dismissed.; 2. The question of costs is to be resolved in accordance with the directions given at paragraph [287] of these reasons.
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.