Burns v Sunol

Case [2015] NSWCATAD 178


Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 178
Hearing dates:1 June 2015
Date of orders: 25 August 2015
Decision date: 25 August 2015
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: A Britton, Principal Member
Decision:

The application to dismiss Complaints 1, 2 and 3 (1410717, 1410218, 1410195), is dismissed.

Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — dismissal of complaint under s 102 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 — whether complaint is vexatious, misconceived or lacking in substance — meaning of expression “taking the evidence at its highest”
EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — homosexual vilification — whether a publication was a public act of the respondent — whether the publication had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual persons
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Obieta v Australian College of Professionals Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAP 38
Alchin v Rail Corporation NSW [2012] NSWADT 142
Rae v Commissioner of Police NSW (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 36
Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr [2001] NSWADTAP 16
Prakash v Bobb Borg Enterprises Pty Limited [1999] NSWADT 73
Karekar v TAFE Commission of New South Wales [2000] NSWADT 187
Margan v University of Technology, Sydney [2003] NSWADTAP 65
Z (No. 3) v University of A [2001] NSWADT 182
Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Catch the Fire Ministries Inc v Islamic Council of Victoria Inc [2006] VSCA 284; (2006) 15 VR 207
Sunol v Collier and anor. (No 2) [2012] NSWCA 44 Jones v Trad [2013] NSWCA 389
Trad v Jones (No 7) [2014] NSWCATAD 225
Crewdson v Niland & Ors (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 5
Razaghi v Director-General, NSW Department of Health & Anor [2002] NSWADT 4
Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Garry Burns (applicant)
John Sunol (respondent)
Representation: Mr Burns (in person)
Robert Balzola and Associates (Respondent)
File Number(s):1410195, 1410218, 1410717
Publication restriction:None

Reasons for decision

  1. Mr Garry Burns has lodged three complaints (the complaints) with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (respectively “the President” and “the Board”) about Mr John Sunol, the respondent in these proceedings. The complaints relate to content published on the internet which Mr Burns contends vilifies homosexuals. Section 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act) makes it unlawful for a person, by a public act, to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person on the ground that the person(s) is thought to be homosexual. In two of the complaints Mr Burns also alleges that some of the content published by Mr Sunol amounts to victimisation within the meaning of s 50 of the Act.

  2. The content about which Mr Burns complains (the offending content) was either published on a website operated by Mr Sunol or on websites operated by third parties (third party content). With respect to the third party content, Mr Burns contends that Mr Sunol invited…

Continue reading Burns v Sunol

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 178
Case
[2015] NSWCATAD 178
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Burns v Sunol involved a dispute concerning the dismissal of a complaint under section 102 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The complainant alleged that certain publications by the respondent constituted acts of homosexual vilification. The matter was heard in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of New South Wales.

The legal issues before the court included determining whether the complaint was vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. Additionally, the court needed to decide whether the publications were public acts and whether they had the capacity to incite hatred, contempt, or ridicule towards homosexual persons. The court considered the expression “taking the evidence at its highest” to determine the potential impact of the publications.

The court found that the complaint was not vexatious, misconceived, or lacking in substance. It concluded that the publications were indeed public acts and had the capacity to incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of homosexual persons. The tribunal dismissed the application to dismiss the complaints. The outcome ensured that the complainant's allegations could proceed to a full investigation under the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application to dismiss Complaints 1, 2 and 3 (1410717, 1410218, 1410195), is dismissed.

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.