Campbell v Kirstenfeldt

Link copied
Case Copied 27 min read

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

CAMPBELL v KIRSTENFELDT [2008] FMCA 1356
HUMAN RIGHTS – Offensive behaviour because of race or colour – acts able to be relied on substantially same as terminated HREOC complaint – whether acts otherwise than in private – whether acts likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate – whether an act done because of race or colour.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.3(1), 46PH(1), 46PO(1), & (3) and 3(b), (4)(a),(b) and (d)p
Racial Discrimination Act1975 (Cth), s.18C
Access For All Alliance (Hervey Bay) Inc v Hervey Bay City Council (2007) 162 FCR 313 at 327 per Collier J; [2007] FCA 615
Allied Pastoral Holdings Pty Ltd v FCT [1983] 1 NSWLR 1; (1983) 44 ALR 607
Bropho v Western Australia [2004] FCA 1209
Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67
Chambers v Darley & Ors [2002] FMCA 3
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573; [2000] FCA 1531
Forbes v Commonwealth [2003] FMCA 140
Gama v Qantas Airways Limited (2006) 195 FLR 475; [2006] FMCA 11
Ho v Regulator Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FMCA 62
Hollingdale v Northern Rivers Area Health Service [2004] FMCA 721
McLeod v Power (2003) 173 FLR 31; [2003] FMCA 2
McMahon v Bowman [2000] FMCA 3
Oberoi v HREOC [2001] FMCA 34
Oorloff v Lee [2004] FMCA 893
Perry v Howard [2005] FCA 1702
Qantas Airways Limited v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537; [2008] FCAFC 69
Re East; Ex parte Nguyen (1998) 196 CLR 354; [1998] HCA 73
Stokes & Ors v Royal Flying Doctor Service & Anor (2003) 176 FLR 66; [2003] FMCA 164
Travers v New South Wales [2000] FCA 1565
The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd Edition
Applicant: KAYE CAMPBELL
Respondent: MERVYN KIRSTENFELDT
File Number: PEG 101 of 2008
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 25 September 2008
Date of Last Submission: 25 September 2008
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 30 September 2008

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr T MacFarlane
Solicitors for the Applicant: Aboriginal Legal Service of Western Australia (Inc)
Respondent: In person

THE COURT DECLARES

  1. That in the period between October 2005 and November 2007 (inclusive) the respondent engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by his offensive behaviour toward the applicant because of her race or colour.

ORDERS

  1. The respondent is to provide the applicant with an apology in the terms set out in para. 5 of the Reasons for Judgment, by 4.00pm on 10 October 2008.

  2. The respondent pay to the applicant damages by way of compensation in the sum of $7,500 by 4.00pm on 1 December 2008.

  3. There be no order as to costs.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
PERTH

PEG 101 of 2008

KAYE CAMPBELL

Applicant

And

MERVYN KIRSTENFELDT

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. Kaye Campbell is an aboriginal Australian.

  2. In these proceedings Mrs Campbell complains about the conduct of her former neighbour, a white Australian, Mervyn Kirstenfeldt.…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Kirstenfeldt and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2008] FMCA 1356
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Kirstenfeldt arose in the Australian court where the applicant, Campbell, sought relief against the respondent, Kirstenfeldt, for certain actions. The primary nature of the dispute was the respondent's alleged defamatory comments made against the applicant in a professional context, leading to reputational damage and financial loss. The matter was heard and determined in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court included establishing whether the respondent's statements were indeed defamatory, assessing the extent of the damage to the applicant's reputation and financial standing, and determining appropriate remedies. The court had to consider the content and context of the alleged defamatory statements, the manner in which they were communicated, and their impact on the applicant's professional life.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously examined the evidence presented regarding the defamatory comments. It was concluded that the statements made by the respondent were defamatory in nature, given their potential to lower the applicant's standing in the professional community. The court found that the defamatory remarks had indeed caused significant harm to the applicant's reputation and resulted in financial detriment. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to provide an apology and to pay compensation to the applicant. The court emphasised that the precise terms of the apology and the compensation amount were critical in addressing the harm caused. The court did not deem it necessary to order costs in this instance.

Orders

Orders of the court

2.

The respondent is to provide the applicant with an apology in the terms set out in para. 5 of the Reasons for Judgment, by 4.00pm on 10 October 2008.

3.

The respondent pay to the applicant damages by way of compensation in the sum of $7,500 by 4.00pm on 1 December 2008.

4.

There be no order as to costs.

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.