Dee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police & Anor (No 2)
Case
•
[2004] NSWADT 168
•08/16/2004
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Dee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police (No 2) [2004] NSWADT 168
[2004] NSWADT 168
08/16/2004
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Dee v Commissioner of Police, NSW Police & Anor (No 2) involved a dispute between the Applicant, Dee, and the Respondents, namely the Commissioner of Police for New South Wales and the NSW Police. The Applicant, Dee, sought compensation for what was alleged to be a breach of section 22B of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. This section pertains to the protection against discrimination in employment and related areas. The matter was heard by the court and resulted in a determination of liability and an award of damages.
The legal issues central to this case revolved around whether the Respondents had indeed breached section 22B of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the actions of the Respondents constituted discrimination against the Applicant in employment-related matters. Additionally, the court examined the extent of any damages that should be awarded to the Applicant if a breach was found.
In its judgment, the court found that the Respondents had breached section 22B of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. The court was satisfied that the Applicant had experienced discrimination in employment due to the actions of the Respondents. The court found that the discriminatory conduct was serious enough to warrant a substantial award of damages. Consequently, the court ordered the Respondents to pay the Applicant $20,000 as compensation for the breach. Furthermore, the court ruled that the First Respondent should cover the costs of the Applicant and the Second Respondent for the hearing date of 6 February 2004, as agreed upon or as determined under the Legal Profession Act 1987.
The legal issues central to this case revolved around whether the Respondents had indeed breached section 22B of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the actions of the Respondents constituted discrimination against the Applicant in employment-related matters. Additionally, the court examined the extent of any damages that should be awarded to the Applicant if a breach was found.
In its judgment, the court found that the Respondents had breached section 22B of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977. The court was satisfied that the Applicant had experienced discrimination in employment due to the actions of the Respondents. The court found that the discriminatory conduct was serious enough to warrant a substantial award of damages. Consequently, the court ordered the Respondents to pay the Applicant $20,000 as compensation for the breach. Furthermore, the court ruled that the First Respondent should cover the costs of the Applicant and the Second Respondent for the hearing date of 6 February 2004, as agreed upon or as determined under the Legal Profession Act 1987.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Anti-Discrimination Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Breach of Statute
-
Compensatory Damages
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Rodgers v Revenue SA, Department of Treasury and Finance (State of South Australia) [2014] SASCFC 2
Cases Citing This Decision
14
NSW Breeding & Racing v Administrative Decisions Tribunal
[2001] NSWSC 494
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
3
X v Y & Anor
[2000] NSWADT 122
Hunt v Rail Corporation of New South Wales
[2007] NSWADT 152
Caton v Richmond Club Limited
[2003] NSWADT 202