Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 97 Hearing dates: On the papers Date of orders: 18 May 2016 Decision date: 18 May 2016 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: A Britton, Principal Member
M O’Halloran, General Member
M Murray, General MemberDecision: Pursuant to s 108(2)(g) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), the Tribunal declines to take any further action in the matter.
Catchwords: EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — homosexual vilification — complaint found proven — whether the power to publish an apology can and should be exercised — decline to take further action Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)Cases Cited: Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 16
Burns v Sunol [2015] NSWCATAD 40
Burns v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 267
Burns v Corbett [2013] NSWADT 227
Burns v Sunol [2014] NSWCATAD 61
Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 74Category: Principal judgment Parties: Garry Burns (Applicant)
Christopher Sunol (Respondent)Representation: Solicitors:
G Burns (Applicant in Person)
R Balzola & Associates (Respondent)
File Number(s): 1510181
REASONS FOR DECISION
-
In a decision made on 21 January 2016, we found substantiated a complaint lodged by Gary Burns with the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board, alleging that John Sunol had published material on the internet that vilified homosexual persons in contravention of s 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) (the Act): Burns v Sunol [2016] NSWCATAD 16 (Burns 2016). In that decision we invited Mr Burns to advise the Tribunal and Mr Sunol of the orders, if any, he sought under s 108(2) of the Act and to provide supporting evidence and submissions. Mr Sunol was invited to provide evidence and submissions in reply. Both parties provided the Tribunal with brief written submissions.
-
In a letter to the Registrar dated 21 January 2016, Mr Burns wrote that he sought the following orders:
[Mr Sunol] is to publish an apology in the Newcastle Herald in a prominent position at his own expense and to also to apologise to the Applicant in writing.
Any such apology must be pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and to be written in a format determined by the Tribunal and not to by [Mr Sunol] himself.
-
Mr Sunol opposes the proposed orders.
-
Despite being directed to do so, neither party advised the Registrar whether they consented to the Tribunal deciding the issue of whether orders should be made under s 108(2) of the Act, “on the papers”. Given the narrow scope of issues to be determined, we are satisfied that this issue can adequately be dealt with in the absence of the parties and on the bases of the submissions provided. We therefore decided to exercise the power conferred by s 50(2) of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) to proceed to determine the issue of orders without holding a hearing.
Should Mr Sunol be ordered…
Continue reading Burns v Sunol (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2016] NSWCATAD 97
- Case
- [2016] NSWCATAD 97
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue was whether the Tribunal had the authority to order the respondent to publish an apology, and if so, whether it was appropriate to do so in this particular case. The Tribunal had to consider the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) and the precedents set by previous cases. Additionally, the Tribunal had to weigh the public interest in promoting equal opportunity and preventing discrimination against the potential impact of the apology on the respondent's rights.
The Tribunal found that it did have the power to order the respondent to publish an apology, based on the plain language of section 108(2)(g) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). However, in exercising its discretion, the Tribunal declined to take further action. The Tribunal considered that the respondent had already expressed remorse for their actions and had taken steps to rectify the situation, such as attending diversity training and apologising to the complainant in person. The Tribunal also took into account the potential harm to the respondent's reputation and the risk of over-regulation of free speech. The Tribunal concluded that, in all the circumstances, it was not necessary to order the respondent to publish an apology.
No further action was taken by the Tribunal in this matter. The Tribunal's decision was based on a careful consideration of the relevant legal provisions and the specific facts of the case. The outcome reflects the delicate balance between promoting equal opportunity and protecting individual rights.
Orders
Orders of the court
Pursuant to s 108(2)(g) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), the Tribunal declines to take any further action in the matter.
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.