Forozandeh v Sky City Adelaide

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

FOROZANDEH v SKY CITY ADELAIDE [2006] FMCA 222

HUMAN RIGHTS – Allegation of discrimination – applicant says he was denied entry to Grange Room at Sky City Adelaide Casino based on respondent’s employee’s racially discriminatory attitude and remark – whether incident as alleged occurred – allegations to be proven on civil standard – applicant in communication with Casino over period of two years but act of discrimination never raised by him – finding that act as alleged did not occur.

Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) ss.9, 13, 18A
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth) s.46PR

Purvis v New South Wales Department of Education & Training (2003) 202 ALR
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 66 CLR 336
McAllister v SEQ Aboriginal Court for Legal Services & Anor [2002] FMCA 109
Beamish v Zheng [2004] FMCA 60 at [14]

Applicant: SHAHRAM FOROZANDEH

Respondent: SKY CITY ADELAIDE PTY LTD

File Number: ADG 1 of 2004

Judgment of: Lindsay FM

Hearing dates: 16 & 18 February 2005, 8 & 11 July 2005,
5 & 26 August 2005

Date of Last Submission: N/A

Delivered at: Adelaide

Delivered on: 17 February 2006

REPRESENTATION

Applicant: In Person

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Austin

Solicitors for the Respondent: Minter Ellison

ORDERS

1. That the Application filed on 7 January 2004 be and the same is hereby dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

ADG 1 of 2004

SHARAM FOROZANDEH

Applicant

And

SKY CITY ADELAIDE PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application by Mr Forozandeh for orders under the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”). The application was filed on 7 June 2004 and in relation to the orders sought, specified:

2. The application was filed on 7 June 2004 and in relation to the orders sought, specified:

   a)Discrimination to be lifted and an apology from Sky City Adelaide.

   b)Compensation for the distress they have caused me over the last two years.

   c)Given direction to Sky City Adelaide not to repeat similar action.

3. Pursuant to the Rules of this Court Mr Forozandeh filed an affidavit with his application.

4. In that affidavit, which was also filed on the 7th day of June 2004, he deposed to the following:

   “I feel I have been discriminated by Skycity Adelaide employee named Albert Davia as he had refused my entry as a guest of a member.  Also I heard him once as he was (try) explaining to me said he had bad experiences with Persians in Melbourne.

   I believe my complain [sic] is releavent [sic] to sections 9, 13 and 18A of the act.

   As a result of Skycity Adelaide action I have suffered a lot of stress and discomfort.”

5. When he lodged his complaint with the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC) Mr Forozandeh described in the pro forma document provided by him a description of what had happened to him.  The document is dated 18 June 2003.  Under the heading “What…