Burns v Media Options Group Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 78 min read

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BURNS v MEDIA OPTIONS GROUP PTY LTD & ORS [2013] FCCA 79
HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – sex discrimination – carers’ and family responsibilities.

Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986, ss.46PH, 46PN, 46PO, 46PR
Disability Discrimination Act 1992, ss.4, 5, 6, 15, 123
Sex Discrimination Act 1984, ss.7A, 14, 106
Evidence Act 1995, ss.39, 41, 55, 56, 57, 59, 63, 64, 67, 69, 76, 97, 101A, 102, 103, 136
Judiciary Act 1903, s.79
Acts Interpretation Act 1901, s.2C
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001, r.1.06
Fair Work Regulations 2009, r.1.07
Evidence Regulations 1995 (Cth).

Federal Magistrates Court Amendment Rules 2012 (No.1) (SLI.No 94 of 2012)

Occupational Health and Safety Act (NSW), s.8
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s.61
Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2007 (NSW)
Limitations Act 1969 (NSW)

Achal v Electrolux Pty Ltd (1993) 50 IR 236
Assafiri v Horne [2004] WASCA 40
Australian Iron & Steel v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Najdovska & Ors (1988) EOC 92 – 223
Baird v State of Queensland [2005] FCA 1516
Baird v Queensland (2006) 156 FCR 451
Brandy v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [1995] HCA 10; (1995) 183 CLR 245; (1995) 127 ALR 1
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] ALR 334; (1938) 60 CLR 336
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Cincotta v Sunnyhaven Limited [2012] FMCA 110
Djokic v Sinclair & Central Queensland Meat Export Co Pty Ltd [1994] HREOCA 16; (1994) EOC 92-643
Employment Services Australia Pty Ltd v Poniatowska [2010] FCAFC 92
Evans v The Queen [2007] HCA 59
Font v Paspaley Pearls (2002) FMCA 142
Frith v The Exchange Hotel & Anor [2005] FMCA 402
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] FMCA 11
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Hall v Sheiban Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 72; (1989) 20 FCR 217
Hollingdale v North Coast Area Health Service [2006] FMCA 5
Hughes (formerly De Jager) v Car Buyers Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] FMCA 526
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
R v Knight (1988) 35 A Crim R 314
R v Kovacs [2008] QCA 417
Libke v The Queen [2007] HCA 30; (2007) 235 ALR 517
McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) [2007] FCA 1903
Naidu v Group 4 Securitas Pty Limited [2005] NSWSC 618; [2005] EOC 93-408
NAIS v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 77; 80 ALJR 367; 223 ALR 171
National Australia Bank Ltd v Rusu & Ors [1999] NSWSC 539
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 110 ALR 449
New South Wales v Amery (2006) 230 CLR 174
Poniatowska v Hickinbotham [2009] FCA 680
Purvis v State of New South Wales (Department of Education and Training) [2003] HCA 62; (2003) 217 CLR 92; (2003) 202 ALR 133
Qantas Airways…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Burns v Media Options Group Pty Ltd 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
[2013] FCCA 79
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Burns v Media Options Group Pty Ltd*, heard by Judge Nicholls, the applicant brought proceedings against the respondents alleging unlawful discrimination. The dispute concerned alleged breaches of the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* (Cth) and the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984* (Cth).

The court was required to determine whether the respondents had engaged in unlawful discrimination against the applicant, specifically in relation to disability discrimination and discrimination based on carers' and family responsibilities, as well as sex discrimination.

Judge Nicholls found that the respondents had breached both the *Disability Discrimination Act 1992* and the *Sex Discrimination Act 1984*. The court ordered the respondents to pay the applicant $81,213.46 in damages. Additionally, pursuant to s.76(3)(d) of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth), the respondents were ordered to pay $25,000 as interest to the date of judgment. Further interest was to be paid on the judgment amount under s.77(3) of the *Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999* (Cth) and r.39.06 of the *Federal Court Rules 2011* (Cth). The court also certified that the proceedings reasonably required the employment of an advocate by the applicant, pursuant to r.21.15 of the *Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001* (Cth).

Orders

Orders of the court

The respondents to pay the applicant $81,213.46 as damages for breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) and the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth).

Pursuant to s.76(3)(d) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), the respondents to pay the applicant $25,000 as interest to the date of judgment.

The respondents to pay to the applicant interest on the judgment amount pursuant to s.77(3) of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth) and r.39.06 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to r.21.15 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), the proceedings reasonably required the employment of an advocate by the applicant.

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.