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 personsLegislation 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 4Category: 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
-
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.
-
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
- AGLC
- Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 178
- Case
- [2015] NSWCATAD 178
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.