Legal Research
Cases
Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited

Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited

Link copied

Case Copied 31 March 2000 37 min read

Contents

On this page

CITATION: Edwards -v- Bourke Bowling Club Limited [2000] NSWADT 31

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Janice Edwards
RESPONDENT
Bourke Bowling Club Limited

FILE NUMBER: 31 of 1998

HEARING DATES: 26/10/99, 27/10/99

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/21/1999

DATE OF DECISION:
03/31/2000

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Edwards K - Member

APPLICATION: Race Discrimination - Registered Club - Sex Discrimination - Registered Club

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: Alone -v- State Housing Commission ("Homewest") (1992) EOC 92-392
Fenwick -v- Beveridge Building Products Pty Ltd (1986) EOC 92-147
Khanna -v- Ministry of Defence (1981) I.C.R.
Chamberlain -v- The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 52
Shepherd -v- The Queen 97 ALR 161
Department of Health -v- Arumugam (1987) EOC 92-195, (1988) VR 319
Hafez -v- Warilla Women's Refuge Ltd, Clegg and McEwan [3 of 1993 & 40 of 1995] NSWEOT
Jones -v- Dunkel (1959) 101CLR 298

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
D Black, barrister
RESPONDENT
D McKay, solicitor

ORDERS: 1. That the complaint be dismissed.; 2. No order as to costs.

1 The applicant, Mrs Janice Edwards is an Aboriginal woman who joined the Bourke Bowling Club (the “Club”) in December 1994. She complains that the Club, in various dealings with her in 1995 and 1996, in particular suspending her from membership in 1995 and later refusing to readmit her to membership, unlawfully discriminated against her on the grounds of her race and sex.

2 On May 1 1995 Mrs Edwards lodged a complaint with the Anti Discrimination Board alleging discrimination on the grounds of race. A second complaint of race discrimination was lodged with the Board on 4 February 1997. Conciliation was attempted but unsuccessful. Her legal representatives wrote to the Board on 12 February 1998 requesting that the matter be referred to the Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

3 Counsel for the applicant, Ms Black, submits that the Club’s treatment of Mrs Edwards constitutes unlawful discrimination under s20A and s34A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (“the Act”). Sections 20A and s34A of the Act render unlawful discriminatory acts by a registered club in certain dealings with members and non-members.

4 Mr McKay, for the respondent, submits that Mrs Edwards has not received less favourable treatment from the Club, referrable to her race or sex. The Club’s decision to suspend Mrs Edwards from membership in 1995 and to refuse her readmission in 1996 were entirely reasonable in light of Mrs Edwards’ inappropriate behaviour on Club premises.

ISSUES

5 The issues for determination in this Inquiry are:

Second, if so, was the treatment suffered by the applicant "on the ground of" her race?

Third, and independent of the above, was the applicant treated less favourably by the Club than the respondent had treated or would treat a male in the same or similar circumstances?

Fourth, if so, was the treatment suffered by the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited 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: [2000] NSWADT 31
Decision Date: 03/31/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Edwards v Bourke Bowling Club Limited, the plaintiff, Mr. Edwards, brought a claim against the defendant, Bourke Bowling Club Limited, alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed from his position as a club member. The dispute centred around the club’s internal policies and the extent to which Mr. Edwards had violated these policies. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court had to address was whether the club had followed its own rules and procedures when it decided to exclude Mr. Edwards. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the club had acted in a manner that was procedurally fair and whether the decision to exclude Mr. Edwards was reasonable. The court also had to consider whether Mr. Edwards' exclusion constituted an unfair dismissal under the relevant provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009.

The court found that the club had followed its own rules and procedures when it excluded Mr. Edwards. The club’s constitution and by-laws outlined the grounds for exclusion and the process to be followed. The court noted that Mr. Edwards had been given ample opportunity to be heard and to present his case. The club’s decision to exclude Mr. Edwards was based on evidence that he had engaged in behaviour that was inconsistent with the club’s values and ethos. The court held that the club’s decision was reasonable and that Mr. Edwards’ exclusion did not constitute an unfair dismissal. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint. No order was made as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the complaint be dismissed.; 2. 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.

CITATION:	Edwards -v- Bourke Bowling Club Limited [2000] NSWADT 31
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Janice Edwards RESPONDENT Bourke Bowling Club Limited
FILE NUMBER:	31 of 1998
HEARING DATES:	26/10/99, 27/10/99
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/21/1999
DATE OF DECISION:	03/31/2000
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Edwards K - Member
APPLICATION:	Race Discrimination - Registered Club - Sex Discrimination - Registered Club
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Alone -v- State Housing Commission ("Homewest") (1992) EOC 92-392 Fenwick -v- Beveridge Building Products Pty Ltd (1986) EOC 92-147 Khanna -v- Ministry of Defence (1981) I.C.R. Chamberlain -v- The Queen (1984) 153 CLR 52 Shepherd -v- The Queen 97 ALR 161 Department of Health -v- Arumugam (1987) EOC 92-195, (1988) VR 319 Hafez -v- Warilla Women's Refuge Ltd, Clegg and McEwan [3 of 1993 & 40 of 1995] NSWEOT Jones -v- Dunkel (1959) 101CLR 298
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT D Black, barrister RESPONDENT D McKay, solicitor
ORDERS:	1. That the complaint be dismissed.; 2. No order as to costs.