Ekermawi v Harbour Radio Pty Ltd, Ekermawi v Nine Network Television Pty Ltd

Ekermawi filed complaints with the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales against Harbour Radio Pty Ltd and Nine Network Television Pty Ltd, alleging that they had racially vilified her. The complaints were dismissed by the Board, and Ekermawi appealed to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal also dismissed the complaints, and Ekermawi appealed to the Land and Environment Court. The court had to decide whether Harbour Radio and Nine Network had engaged in conduct that was racially vilifying under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The court had to consider the meaning of racial vilification, the context of the alleged conduct, and whether the conduct was likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone because of their race.

The court held that the complaints were not well-founded because the alleged conduct did not amount to racial vilification. The court found that the term "wog" was not necessarily racially vilifying in the context of the radio show and television program. The court also found that the conduct was not likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Ekermawi because of her race. The court held that the complaints were frivolous and vexatious, and dismissed them with no order for costs unless a party applied for costs within 21 days.

The court dismissed the complaints filed by Ekermawi against Harbour Radio and Nine Network. The court held that the alleged conduct did not amount to racial vilification because the term "wog" was not necessarily racially vilifying in the context of the radio show and television program. The court also held that the conduct was not likely to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate Ekermawi because of her race. The court found that the complaints were frivolous and vexatious, and dismissed them with no order for costs unless a party applied for costs within 21 days.