Higgins v Orchard

In *Higgins v Orchard*, the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an appeal concerning the assessment of compensation by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal. The dispute arose from a finding of unlawful discrimination against the appellant, Mr. Higgins, and a co-respondent, Mr. Orchard. Prior to the Tribunal's inquiry into the quantum of compensation, Mr. Orchard reached a settlement with the complainant, agreeing to pay a sum of money. The Tribunal subsequently proceeded to assess compensation against Mr. Higgins, taking into account the settlement amount paid by Mr. Orchard.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal erred in law by reducing the compensation payable by Mr. Higgins by the amount Mr. Orchard had paid in settlement. Specifically, the Court had to determine the proper approach to assessing compensation when one of two respondents with coordinate liability has compromised their liability with the complainant before the inquiry into the quantum of damages.

The Court held that the Tribunal had correctly applied the principles of assessing compensation. It reasoned that where multiple respondents are found to have engaged in conduct that caused the same loss or damage, and one respondent settles with the complainant, that settlement amount should be taken into account when assessing the compensation payable by the remaining respondent. This approach prevents the complainant from recovering more than their actual loss and ensures that the liability is apportioned fairly between the wrongdoers. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal has the power to consider such settlements to avoid double recovery and to ensure that the compensation awarded reflects the complainant's actual loss.