Collier v Sunol

Case [2005] NSWADT 261

CITATION: Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261
DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES: APPLICANT
Henry Collier
RESPONDENT
John Sunol
FILE NUMBER: 051037
HEARING DATES: 28/09/2005
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 28/09/2005
DATE OF DECISION:
17/11/2005
BEFORE: Chesterman M - ADCJ (Deputy President); Gill M - Non Judicial Member; Groth D - Non Judicial Member
APPLICATION: Vilification - Homosexual
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth)
CASES CITED: Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Burns v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Ors [2004] NSWADT 267
Dow Jones & Co Inc v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56
Harou-Sourdon v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1994] EOC 92-604
Inquiry Into Broadcasts by Ron Casey (1989) 3 BR 351
John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kazak (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 35
Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Limited [2000] NSWADT 77
Jones v Toben [2002] FCA 1150
Veloskey & Anor v Karagiannakis & Ors (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 18
Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Action Group v Eldridge [1995] EOC 92-701
Western Aboriginal Legal Service Limited v Jones & Anor [2000] NSWADT 102
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
S Pritchard, barrister
RESPONDENT
In person
ORDERS: 1. The Application is upheld in relation to the following statements set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Points of Claim as amended: (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i); 2. The parties are to address us on the matter of what orders we should make by way of relief and with regard to costs. We direct the Registry to arrange a hearing for this purpose

    REASONS FOR DECISION

    The nature of these proceedings

    1 In these proceedings, the Applicant, Mr Henry Collier, alleges that material published by the Respondent, Mr John Sunol, on the internet during October 2004 vilified homosexual people contrary to provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (‘the AD Act’).

    2 According to Mr Collier, Mr Sunol published this material in two ways: by including it in material published on websites controlled by him and by contributing it to websites controlled by others. All the websites involved were accessible to the general public without a password.

    3 The orders that Mr Collier seeks from the Tribunal are that Mr Sunol must (a) remove from all websites controlled by him all material relating to homosexuals, homosexuality or the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras; (b) refrain from publishing material on these topics on any website, whether or not it is controlled by him; (c) post an apology for his prior publication of material vilifying homosexuals on every website that is controlled by him, or on which he has previously published any material; and (d) pay Mr Collier’s costs.

    4 Mr Sunol asserts that some of the material claimed to have been published by him was in fact put on the relevant website by other people. He admits that he himself published the rest of the material, but says that this material did not contravene the AD Act for two reasons. These are (a) that it did not vilify homosexual people and (b) that…

Continue reading Collier v Sunol

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Collier v Sunol [2005] NSWADT 261
Case
[2005] NSWADT 261
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Collier v Sunol involved the plaintiff, Collier, who sought relief against Sunol in the Federal Court of Australia. Collier alleged that Sunol had made defamatory statements about them, specifically in relation to their professional conduct and integrity. The dispute centred on certain statements made by Sunol that were alleged to be defamatory and false. These statements were detailed in paragraph 2.3 of the Points of Claim as amended, and included allegations about Collier's professional misconduct and financial dealings.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the statements made by Sunol were defamatory and, if so, whether they were true. The court had to determine the precise scope of the statements and decide whether they had the effect of lowering Collier's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of the community. Additionally, the court examined the truth of the statements, as truth is an absolute defence to defamation claims. The court also had to consider the implications of the amended Points of Claim on the proceedings.

In its decision, the court found that certain statements made by Sunol were defamatory and false. Specifically, the court upheld the application in relation to statements (d), (e), (f), (h), and (i) set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Points of Claim as amended. The court held that these statements had indeed lowered Collier's reputation and were not true. The court noted that the defamatory nature of the statements was evident from the content, which implied misconduct and dishonesty on the part of Collier. Furthermore, the court found that Sunol had not provided any evidence to substantiate these allegations, thus affirming their falsity. The court directed the parties to address the issue of what orders should be made by way of relief and regarding costs, scheduling a hearing for this purpose.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Application is upheld in relation to the following statements set out in paragraph 2.3 of the Points of Claim as amended: (d), (e), (f), (h) and (i); 2. The parties are to address us on the matter of what orders we should make by way of relief and with regard to costs. We direct the Registry to arrange a hearing for this purpose

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.