Cook v Scuffy Murphy's Pty Ltd

[2007] NSWADT 129

CITATION:	Cook v Scuffy Murphy's Pty Ltd & anor [2007] NSWADT 129
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Marcellus Cook FIRST RESPONDENT Scruffy Murphy's Pty Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT T & B Corporate Security Services Pty Ltd
FILE NUMBER:	061103
HEARING DATES:	2 May 2007
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	2 May 2007
DATE OF DECISION:	19 June 2007
BEFORE:	Connelly J - Judicial Member ; Hiffernan N - Non Judicial Member; Schembri A - Non Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS:	Race Discrimination - Goods and Services
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 503 Reddy v International Cargo Express [2004] NSWADT 218
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT D Hilliard, solicitor FIRST RESPONDENT B Cross, counsel SECOND RESPONDENT T Brandusiou, agent
ORDERS:	1. The first respondent is to pay the applicant general damages in the sum of $2,500.00 within 28 days.; 2. The second respondent is to pay the applicant general damages in the sum of $2,500.00 within 28 days.; 3. No order as to costs.

1 In the very early hours of 30 November 2005 Marcellus Cook went with a number of work colleagues to Scruffy Murphy’s on Goulburn Street in Sydney. They had just finished a meal at a local restaurant, at which no alcohol was consumed, and they were looking to continue the evening. Mr Cook’s friends were allowed entry in to Scruffy Murphy’s (Scruffy’s) but Mr Cook was not. He was refused entry by the doormen because Scruffy Murphy’s policy at that time was that people of Pacific Islander and Middle Eastern appearance were to be refused entry to the Club unless they were known to the hotelier, Mr McGuiness, or his staff. Mr Cook is of Pacific Islander descent.

2 Mr McGuiness had only recently introduced that policy because his hotel had recently been implicated in a number of assaults in the local area which he says were apparently mainly carried out by people of Pacific Islander or Middle Eastern appearance. The doormen that night were security guards employed by T & B Security Services Pty Ltd (T & B) and Mr McGuiness says that they were instructed to enforce the policy.

3 Mr Cook makes a claim for compensation. Scruffy’s admits that its actions amount to a breach of s19 (a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the “Act”) and it does not contest the version of events offered by Mr Cook.

4 T & B at the hearing contested Mr Cook’s version of events and did not admit that its employees acted in breach of the Act or that Mr Cook was refused entry because he was an Islander.

5 Mr Cook asserts that T & B, in carrying out Scruffy’s policy, has aided Scruffy’s and is therefore jointly and severally liable pursuant to s 52 of the Act.

6 At the case conference in this matter on 31/1/07 both respondents accepted responsibility for the conduct of their employees and no issue in relation to their…