Burton v Houston

[2004] TASSC 57

[2004] TASSC 57

CITATION:              Burton v Houston [2004] TASSC 57

PARTIES:  BURTON, Richard Clarke
  v
  HOUSTON, Roslyn

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  LCA 66/2003
DELIVERED ON:  11 June 2004
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  18, 24 February 2004
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow J

CATCHWORDS:

Discrimination Law – State provisions – Tasmania – Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas) – Prohibited conduct – Sexual harassment – Activity in connection with accommodation – Quantum of compensation.

Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (Tas), ss22(1)(d), 89(1)(d).
Alders International Pty Ltd v Anstee (1986) 5 NSWLR 47; Spencer v Dowling [1997] 2 VR 127; Alexander v Home Office [1988] 2 All ER 118, referred to.
Aust Dig Discrimination Law [17.5]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  J M Bryan
Solicitors:
             Appellant:  In person
             Respondent:  J M Bryan

Judgment  Number:  [2004] TASSC 57
Number of paragraphs:  34

Serial No 57/2004
File No LCA 66/2003

RICHARD CLARKE BURTON v ROSLYN HOUSTON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT  BLOW J

11 June 2004

1. This is an appeal from a decision of the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal.  It is brought pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 ("the Act"), s100(1). It relates to an incident that occurred very early on the morning of 25 February 2000, not long after midnight. The parties were then living in adjoining apartments. They shared a common balcony that was accessible only from their two apartments. The respondent is, and was at the time of that incident, a transsexual who dressed and appeared as a woman. I will refer to her as "the complainant". On the night in question, she went onto the balcony and knocked on the appellant's door. She wanted to complain about noise from his apartment, or to ask for it to be reduced. The appellant answered his door and swore at the complainant. A short and unpleasant conversation followed. The parties had different versions of what was said. Also, according to the complainant, the appellant poked her in the chest with two fingers several times. The appellant denied doing so. The complainant made a complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner about the appellant's conduct during that incident. The Commissioner referred the complaint to the Tribunal. The Tribunal conducted a hearing and subsequently delivered a reserved decision in which it accepted the complainant's evidence; rejected the appellant's evidence where it conflicted with that of the complainant; made a finding that the complainant had been undertaking an activity in connection with accommodation within the meaning of the Act, s22(1)(d), at the time of the incident, in that she had knocked on the appellant's door to speak to him about noise that was impacting on the quality of her accommodation; made a finding that the appellant's conduct during the incident was prohibited conduct within the scope of the Act, s17(1); and made an order that the appellant pay the complainant $4,000 as compensation, relying on the Act, s89(1)(d).

1. The appellant was not legally represented at the hearing of this appeal.  He relied upon a number of grounds…