Civil and Administrative Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Galstaun v Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCATAD 75 Hearing dates: 21 December 2020 Date of orders: 24 March 2021 Decision date: 24 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: C Ludlow, Senior Member
J Newman, General MemberDecision: 1. The name of the respondent is amended to Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd.
2. We find that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant on the ground of age in contravention of s 49ZYB(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 during a telephone conversation on 12 November 2019.
3. Within 28 days of this decision the respondent must pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $3,740.40.
Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – grounds – age discrimination
HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – employment – applicants – determining who should be offered employment
HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – damages
Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [1999] NSWADT 33
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police v Mooney (No 3) (EOD)[2004] NSWADTAP 22
Commonwealth v Evans [2004] FCA 654
Craig-Bennet v Greater Western Area Health Service [2011] NSWADT 30
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 133
Green v Department of Family and Community Services [2013] NSWADT 193
Henville v Walker [2001] HCA 52
I and L Securities Pty Ltd v HTW Valuers (Brisbane) Pty Ltd [2002] HCA 41
IW v the City of Perth [1997] HCA 30
Norrie v NSW Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages [2013] NSWCA 145
Parr v University of New England [1999] NSWADT 46
Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92
Whiteoak v State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCATAD 45
Y v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission [2004] FCA 184
Texts Cited: None cited
Category: Principal judgment Parties: John Galstaun (Applicant)
Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
L Andelman (Applicant)
153 Phillip Barristers
Respondent (Self-represented)
File Number(s): 2020/00223834 Publication restriction: None
REASONS FOR DECISION
Nature of the claim
-
The applicant, Mr Galstaun, has worked in the construction industry and related industries. As at 12 November 2019, he was 61 years of age. He alleges that he telephoned the respondent, Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd (Adept) on 12 November 2019 to inquire about a casual construction worker job the company had advertised on the recruitment website Indeed. He alleges that the phone was answered by its director, Mr Leslie McDougall, who asked him how old he was and when Mr Galstaun answered that he was 61, laughed and said he would have a heart attack and he didn’t want that happening on his site, said he was too old and ended the call.
-
Mr Galstaun claims that this call affected his confidence in his ability to undertake construction work and as a result he ceased accepting such work for about six months. He claims that this exchange between himself and Mr McDougall…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Galstaun v Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2021] NSWCATAD 75
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court needed to decide were whether the respondent had indeed discriminated against the applicant on the basis of age and, if so, whether this constituted a contravention of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. The court also needed to determine if the applicant was entitled to compensation for the alleged discrimination.
The court found that the respondent had unlawfully discriminated against the applicant on the ground of age during a telephone conversation on 12 November 2019. This finding was based on the respondent's comments about the applicant's age, which were deemed inappropriate and discriminatory. The court held that the respondent's actions contravened section 49ZYB(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Consequently, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant compensation in the sum of $3,740.40 within 28 days of the decision. The court's decision was clear in its finding of unlawful discrimination and the resultant compensation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The name of the respondent is amended to Adept Underpinner Pty Ltd.
2. We find that the respondent unlawfully discriminated against the applicant on the ground of age in contravention of s 49ZYB(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 during a telephone conversation on 12 November 2019.
3. Within 28 days of this decision the respondent must pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $3,740.40.
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.