Cohen v Hargous; Karelicki v Hargous

Case

[2006] NSWADT 209

20/07/2006


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Cohen v Hargous; Karelicki v Hargous [2006] NSWADT 209 [2006] NSWADT 209 20/07/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cohen v Hargous; Karelicki v Hargous, Martin Cohen, Anna Cohen, and Alicia Karelicki brought complaints of racial vilification against the respondent, Hargous. The matter was heard in the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Queensland. The Applicants alleged that the Respondent had made racially vilifying comments towards them, and they sought relief under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld).

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Respondent's conduct amounted to racial vilification. The Applicants argued that the Respondent's comments were of a racial nature and were likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate them based on their race. The Respondent, on the other hand, denied making any such comments and claimed that the Applicants had misinterpreted his words. The Tribunal had to determine if the Respondent's conduct fell within the definition of racial vilification under the Act.

In its decision, the Tribunal found that the complaints of racial vilification were substantiated. The Tribunal held that the Respondent's comments were indeed of a racial nature and were likely to offend, insult, humiliate, or intimidate the Applicants based on their race. The Tribunal rejected the Respondent's argument that the Applicants had misinterpreted his words and found that the Respondent's conduct amounted to racial vilification. The Tribunal also noted that the Respondent had a history of making similar comments in the past, which further supported the finding of racial vilification.

The Tribunal ordered that the complaints of racial vilification be substantiated and that the issue of relief be determined "on the paper" unless an application for a further hearing was received from one of the parties. The Applicants were invited to make written submissions about the orders if any sought, to be filed and served within 14 days of the date of these orders. The Respondent was invited to make submissions in reply, to be filed and served within 14 days of receipt of the Applicants' submissions.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Anti-Discrimination Law

Legal Concepts

  • Unconscionable Conduct

  • Breach of Contract

  • Restitution

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document

Most Recent Citation
Droga v Birch [2017] NSWCATAD 22

Cases Citing This Decision

10

Droga v Birch [2017] NSWCATAD 22
Burns v Sunol [2012] NSWADT 246
Burns v Sunol (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 247
Cases Cited

12

Statutory Material Cited

3

Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32