Farmer v Jim Markakis Pty Ltd - [2003] NSWADT 252

CITATION: Farmer v Jim Markakis Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 252 revised - 1/12/2003

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES: APPLICANT
Sarah Farmer
RESPONDENT
Jim Markakis Pty Ltd t/a Richardson and Wrench Newtown [2003] NSWADT

FILE NUMBER: 031030

HEARING DATES: 3-4/06/03

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 06/17/2003

DATE OF DECISION:
11/25/2003

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Quayle C - Member; Weule B - Member

APPLICATION: Transgender - Accommodation - Transgender - Goods and Services

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Interpretation Act 1987

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Martin v McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126 Commonwealth Bank v HREOC (1997) 80 FCR 78
Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
Styles v Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1988) ALR 408
Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles (1989) 23 FCR 251
The State of New South Wales v Amery & Ors (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP 16

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
In person
RESPONDENT
A Lepouris, solicitor

ORDERS: 1 Application dismissed; 2 Application for costs dismissed

1 Sarah Farmer is a transgender person and the Applicant in these proceedings. The Respondent, Jim Markakis Pty Ltd trading as Richardson and Wrench Newtown, is a licensed real estate agent who, among other things, manages rental properties on behalf of owners. Miss Farmer complains that the Respondent discriminated against her on transgender grounds.

2 By letter dated 4 January 2001, Miss Farmer wrote to the President of the Anti- Discrimination Board (respectively “the President” and “the Board”) setting out the history of her dealings, which she alleged constituted transgender discrimination, with the Respondent agent.

3 By letter dated 29 October, 2002 Miss Farmer advised the Board that she was not proceeding with any allegation lodged outside the statutory time period (Anti- Discrimination Act 1977 (“the Act”) s 88(4)).

4 The Board attempted to conciliate Miss Farmer’s complaint without success. By letter dated 26 February 2003, the President referred the complaint to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal under s 94(1) of the Act.

Relevant legislative provisions

5 Section 38 M of the Act makes it unlawful for a person who provides (whether or not for payment) goods or services to discriminate against another person on transgender grounds:

(b) in the terms on which the other person is provided with those goods or services.

6 Section 38N(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on transgender grounds:

(b) in the terms on which he or she offers the person accommodation, or

(c) by deferring the person's application for accommodation or giving the person a lower order of precedence in any list of applicants for that accommodation.

7 The exception set out in s 38N(3) has no application in this matter.

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.

Continue reading Farmer v Jim Markakis Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Farmer v Jim Markakis Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 252
Case: [2003] NSWADT 252
Decision Date: 11/25/2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a dispute between the plaintiff, Farmer, and the defendant, Jim Markakis Pty Ltd, concerning the validity of a contract for the supply of goods. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The plaintiff sought to enforce a contract for the supply of goods, while the defendant argued that the contract was invalid due to non-compliance with statutory requirements.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the contract was valid and enforceable, and whether the defendant had breached any statutory provisions in relation to the contract. The court had to determine if the contract complied with the statutory requirements and if the defendant was liable for any breach.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the terms of the contract, the relevant statutory provisions, and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the contract did not comply with the statutory requirements, and therefore was invalid. Consequently, the plaintiff's application to enforce the contract was dismissed. The court also dismissed the plaintiff's application for costs, finding that the defendant had not acted unreasonably in defending the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Application dismissed; 2 Application for costs dismissed

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:	Farmer v Jim Markakis Pty Ltd [2003] NSWADT 252 revised - 1/12/2003
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Sarah Farmer RESPONDENT Jim Markakis Pty Ltd t/a Richardson and Wrench Newtown [2003] NSWADT
FILE NUMBER:	031030
HEARING DATES:	3-4/06/03
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	06/17/2003
DATE OF DECISION:	11/25/2003
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Quayle C - Member; Weule B - Member
APPLICATION:	Transgender - Accommodation - Transgender - Goods and Services
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Interpretation Act 1987
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133 Martin v McKensey (No. 2) [2003] NSWADT 126 Commonwealth Bank v HREOC (1997) 80 FCR 78 Waters & Ors v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349 Styles v Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (1988) ALR 408 Secretary, Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade v Styles (1989) 23 FCR 251 The State of New South Wales v Amery & Ors (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP 16
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT A Lepouris, solicitor
ORDERS:	1 Application dismissed; 2 Application for costs dismissed