Gardner v AANA Ltd - [2003] FMCA 81

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GARDNER v AANA LTD

[2003] FMCA 81

HUMAN RIGHTS – Discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy – interim ban imposed to prevent pregnant women from playing in a Netball trophy competition – whether the interim ban discriminates against the applicant on the grounds of her pregnancy within the meaning of the Sex Discrimination Act – whether by reasons of s.39 of the Act such conduct is unlawful – statutory intention and construction of s.39 – whether a narrow or broad approach should be taken – whether there has been an extension of the exemption to include a class of “de facto” members – whether those who are interpreting statutes should lean towards a construction consistent with international conventions and obligations – damages sought for personal and financial loss – leave granted to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner pursuant to s.46PV of the HREOC Act for intervention in the proceedings as amicus curiae.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.3, 7, 22, 39
Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PP, 46PH(2), 46PV
Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s.15AA
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
X v Commonwealth (1999) 200 CLR 177
Qantas Airways Limited v Christie [1998] 193 CLR 280
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Australian Medical Council v Wilson (1996) 68 FCR 46
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v HR & EO Commission (1998) 150 ALR 1
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Teoh (1995) 183 CLR 273 Plaintiff S157 v Commonwealth of Australia (2003) 195 ALR 24
Commonwealth of Australia v Williams [2002] FCAFC 435

Applicant:

TRUDY ANN GARDNER

Respondent:

ALL AUSTRALIA NETBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED

File No:

AZ 154 of 2002

Delivered on:

13 March 2003

Delivered at:

Sydney

Hearing date:

26 February 2003

Judgment of:

Raphael FM

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Peter Day

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Finlaysons Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr R Dubler

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Corrs Chambers Westgarth Lawyers

Counsel for the Commission:

Mr J Hunyor

Solicitors for the Commission:

Legal Department HREOC

ORDERS

The Court Declares:
(a)The Respondent discriminated against the applicant pursuant to ss.7 and 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act by preventing her from playing netball matches in the trophy on 29 June, 7 July and
13 July 2001.
(b)The conduct of the Respondent was not exempted by virtue of s.39 of the Sex Discrimination Act.
The Court Orders:
(a)Respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $6,750.00 by way of agreed damages.
(b)Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT
ADELAIDE

AZ 154 of 2002

TRUDY ANN GARDNER

Applicant

And

ALL AUSTRALIA NETBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The applicant in this matter is an elite netball player who, during the 2001 netball season, was the captain of the South…

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 Gardner v AANA 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

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: [2003] FMCA 81
Decision Date: 13 March 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gardner v AANA Ltd involved a dispute between Ms. Gardner, the applicant, and AANA Ltd, the respondent, over alleged discrimination based on sex. The dispute arose from the respondent's decision to prevent Ms. Gardner from playing in netball matches, which she claimed was discriminatory. The matter was heard by the Federal Magistrates Court, which had to determine whether the respondent's actions constituted discrimination under the Sex Discrimination Act and if so, whether they were exempt under section 39 of the Act. The court also had to decide on the appropriate remedy for the applicant.

The primary legal issue was whether the respondent's actions constituted discrimination against Ms. Gardner under sections 7 and 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act. Specifically, the court needed to ascertain whether preventing Ms. Gardner from participating in the netball matches constituted discrimination on the grounds of sex. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the respondent's actions were exempt under section 39 of the Act, which provides for exemptions in certain circumstances. The court also had to consider the appropriate remedy, including damages and costs.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties and the provisions of the Sex Discrimination Act. The court found that the respondent's actions in preventing Ms. Gardner from playing in the netball matches did constitute discrimination under sections 7 and 22 of the Act. The court also found that the respondent's actions were not exempt under section 39. Therefore, the court ruled in favour of the applicant. The court ordered the respondent to pay Ms. Gardner $6,750.00 in damages and to pay her costs as per Part 21, Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Court Declares:

(a) The Respondent discriminated against the applicant pursuant to ss.7 and 22 of the Sex Discrimination Act by preventing her from playing netball matches in the trophy on 29 June, 7 July and

13 July 2001.

(b) The conduct of the Respondent was not exempted by virtue of s.39 of the Sex Discrimination Act.

The Court Orders:

(a) Respondent to pay the applicant the sum of $6,750.00 by way of agreed damages.

(b) Respondent to pay the applicant’s costs pursuant to Part 21, Rule 21.10 of the Federal Magistrates Court Rules.

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.