Howe v NSW Farmers' Association

Link copied
Case Copied 73 min read

CITATION: Howe v NSW Farmers’ Association [2010] NSWADT 101
DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:

APPLICANT
Deborah Howe

RESPONDENT
NSW Farmers’ Association and NSW Farmers’ (Industrial) Association
FILE NUMBER: 081086
HEARING DATES: 27 and 28 April 2009
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 9 May 2009
 
DATE OF DECISION: 
23 April 2010
BEFORE: Pritchard S - Judicial Member; O'Sullivan M - Non-Judicial Member; Lowe A - Non-Judicial Member
LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)
Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW)
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)
CASES CITED: Adams v University of Western Sydney [2001] NSWADT 19 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 301
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Commonwealth v HREOC at 493
Commonwealth v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (1997) 147 ALR 469
Director-General, Department of Community Services v MM [2003] NSWSC 1241
Employment Advocate v Williamson (2001) 111 FCR 20 Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] FCA 812
Gama v Qantas Airways Limited (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Graham v State of NSW (Director General, NSW Department of Health, in respect of Ambulance Service Division) [2008] NSWADT 270
Greater Taree City Council v Craig Michael Peck [2002] NSWCA 331
Greater Three City Council v Craig Michael Peck [2002] NSWCA 331
Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 261
Haines v Leves (1987) 8 NSWLR 442
IW v City of Perth (1997) 191 CLR 1
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Nominal Defendants v Owens (1978-79) 22 ALR 128 Penhall-Jones v State of New South Wales [2007] FCA 925 Purvis v State of New South Wales (2003) 217 CLR 92 Qantas Airways Limited v Gama (2001) 167 FCR 537 Rainsford v Victoria (2007) 167 FCR 1
Rainsford v Victoria (2008) 167 FCR 26
Sasterawan v SSS Electronics Pty Ltd [2006] NSWADT 140 Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) (2002) 115 IR 91
Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) (2002) 115 IR 91
Squillacioti v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales & Anor [2002] NSWCA 133
Squillacioti v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales & Anor [2002] NSWCA 133
State of Victoria v McKenna (1999) 140 IR 256
State of Victoria v McKenna (1999) 140 IR 256 at [42]-[43]
Turner v State Transit Authority [2004] NSWADT 89
Waters v Public Transport Corporation (1991) 173 CLR 349
REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT
Mr Austin of counsel

RESPONDENT
P Thew, barrister
ORDERS: Complaint dismissed


REASONS FOR DECISION

1 Since her retirement as a registered nurse and a member of the Australian Defence Force, the applicant has bred cattle. She breeds a breed known as “Square Meaters”. She owns approximately 50 head of cattle. She has at all relevant times been a member of the NSW Farmers’ Association (the first respondent). She is chairperson of the Watagan branch of…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Howe v NSW Farmers' Association 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
[2010] NSWADT 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Howe v NSW Farmers' Association, the respondent sought to have a complaint against the appellant dismissed. The complaint was made to the Fair Trading Commissioner under the Fair Trading Act 1987. The nature of the dispute was whether the complaint could be dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or vexatious. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The legal issues before the court were whether the complaint was frivolous or vexatious, and if so, whether the court had the discretion to dismiss it. The court had to consider the legislative provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1987, and the meaning of the terms 'frivolous' and'vexatious' in that context.

The court found that the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious. The court considered the legislative provisions and found that the terms 'frivolous' and 'vexatious' were not defined in the Fair Trading Act 1987. The court held that the terms were to be given their ordinary meaning, and that the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious as it was based on a genuine concern about the conduct of the respondent. The court also found that the respondent had failed to establish that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious. The court held that the complaint was not without merit and that it was not an abuse of process for the complainant to pursue it. The court found that the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious, and that it was not an abuse of process for the complainant to pursue it.

The court concluded that the complaint could not be dismissed on the grounds that it was frivolous or vexatious. The court held that the respondent had failed to establish that the complaint was frivolous or vexatious. The court found that the complaint was not without merit and that it was not an abuse of process for the complainant to pursue it. The court dismissed the respondent's application to have the complaint dismissed. The court's decision was that the complaint was not frivolous or vexatious, and that it could not be dismissed on those grounds. The respondent's application was dismissed, and the complaint was allowed to proceed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Complaint 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.