Burns v Sunol (No 2)
Case
•
[2012] NSWADT 247
•28 November 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 247
[2012] NSWADT 247
28 November 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter of Burns v Sunol (No 2) involved a dispute between Gary Burns, the applicant, and John Sunol, the respondent, over statements made by the respondent concerning homosexuality and homosexual people. The case was heard by the Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales. The central issues for the tribunal to decide were whether the respondent's statements constituted unlawful vilification and victimisation under the New South Wales Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The tribunal was tasked with assessing the content of the statements and determining whether they incited hatred or serious contempt towards homosexual people based on their sexual orientation.
The tribunal found that the respondent's statements did indeed constitute unlawful vilification. The tribunal held that the statements were capable of inciting hatred or serious contempt towards homosexual individuals, as they were made in a manner that was derogatory and offensive. Additionally, the tribunal determined that the statements did not fall within the exceptions for reasonable and good faith public interest purposes. The tribunal further found that the respondent's actions amounted to victimisation, as the statements were made with the intent to cause harm to the applicant, a known homosexual man, based on his sexual orientation. The tribunal ruled that the respondent's actions were unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to remove specific statements from all websites under his control and to refrain from publishing similar material in the future. The respondent was also required to post a formal apology on all websites controlled by him. Furthermore, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $2,000 in compensation for the harm caused by the vilification and an additional $2,500 for the harm caused by the victimisation. The respondent was also directed to send a signed letter of apology to the applicant. Finally, the respondent was ordered to remove additional statements from his websites within a specified timeframe.
The tribunal found that the respondent's statements did indeed constitute unlawful vilification. The tribunal held that the statements were capable of inciting hatred or serious contempt towards homosexual individuals, as they were made in a manner that was derogatory and offensive. Additionally, the tribunal determined that the statements did not fall within the exceptions for reasonable and good faith public interest purposes. The tribunal further found that the respondent's actions amounted to victimisation, as the statements were made with the intent to cause harm to the applicant, a known homosexual man, based on his sexual orientation. The tribunal ruled that the respondent's actions were unlawful under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.
The tribunal ordered the respondent to remove specific statements from all websites under his control and to refrain from publishing similar material in the future. The respondent was also required to post a formal apology on all websites controlled by him. Furthermore, the tribunal ordered the respondent to pay the applicant $2,000 in compensation for the harm caused by the vilification and an additional $2,500 for the harm caused by the victimisation. The respondent was also directed to send a signed letter of apology to the applicant. Finally, the respondent was ordered to remove additional statements from his websites within a specified timeframe.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Anti-Discrimination Law
Legal Concepts
-
Homosexual Vilification
-
Victimisation
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Removal of Publications
-
Apology
-
Restitution
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 247
Most Recent Citation
Kerslake v Sunol (Discrimination) [2023] ACAT 18
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Kerslake v Sunol (Discrimination)
[2023] ACAT 18
Kerslake v Sunol
[2022] ACAT 40
Rep v Clinch
[2021] ACAT 106
Cases Cited
16
Statutory Material Cited
3
Collier v Sunol
[2008] NSWADT 339
Sunol v Collier (No 2)
[2012] NSWCA 44
Burns v Dye
[2002] NSWADT 32