Hudson v Strathfield Golf Club - [2000] NSWADT 88

CITATION: Hudson -v- Strathfield Golf Club [2000] NSWADT 88

DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division

PARTIES:
APPLICANT
Steven Hudson
RESPONDENT
Strathfield Golf Club

FILE NUMBER: 122 of 1997

HEARING DATES: 09/12/99, 08/03/2000, 09/03/2000

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 04/17/2000

DATE OF DECISION:
07/06/2000

BEFORE: Britton A - Judicial Member; Edwards K - Member; McDonald O - Member

APPLICATION: Race Discrimination - In work

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

CASES CITED: Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Payne v Parker [1976]1NSWLR 191
Langley v University of NSW (1984) EOC92-018
Director General of Education v Brine IIR
Commonwealth v Humphries [1998] 1031 FCA
HREOC v Mount Isa Mines LTD(1993) 118 ALR
Prakash -v- Bob Brog Enterprises Pty Limited [1999], NSWADT 73
Ardeshirian v Robe River Iron Associates (1990) EOC 92- 299
Metwally v University of Wollongong (1984) EOC
Rugema v Gadsten Pty Ltd and Derkes [ 1997] HREOCA 34
Hume v Mulheron [1996] NSWEOT
Gomez v Burgmann Seals Australia Pty Limited [1997] NSWEOT
Fenwick v Beveridge Building Products Pty Ltd (1986) EOC 92-147
Department of Health v Arumugam (1987) EOC 92-195; (1988) VR 319
Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 543

REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
A Tibbey, solicitor
RESPONDENT
E Brus, barrister

ORDERS: 1. The respondent pay to the complainant within 21 days the sum of $3000 for non-economic loss.; 2. The parties provide to the Tribunal further submissions, as directed by the registrar, on the calculation of damages for economic loss.

1 The complainant, Steve Hudson was born in Greece and migrated to Australia in 1971. He was employed by the respondent club, Strathfield Golf Club (SGC) from 30 October 1995 until his dismissal on 7 December 1995. He claims that throughout his employment he was subjected to repeated racial abuse and harassment by co-worker, Steve Willis. He alleges that as a result his terms and conditions of employment were adversely effected in contravention of s8(2)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act (NSW) 1997(the Act). Further it is asserted that the decision to dismiss Mr Hudson amounted to unlawful discrimination pursuant to s8(2)(c) of the Act.

2 The complainant filed an application seeking relief for unfair dismissal under s 246 of the Industrial Relations Act (NSW) 1991 on 29 December 1995. The matter came before the Industrial Commission of NSW on 29 January for a preliminary hearing. In April 1996 the complainant requested permission to withdraw this application. This request was granted by the Commission on 17 April 1996.

3 Mr Hudson lodged a complaint with the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) on 27 December 1995. Conciliation was attempted but unsuccessful. On 4 September 1997 the complainant wrote to the Board requesting that the matter be referred to the (then) Equal Opportunity Tribunal.

Issues

4 The issues for the Tribunal to determine in this matter are :

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 Hudson v Strathfield Golf Club 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: [2000] NSWADT 88
Decision Date: 07/06/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the complainant, Hudson, brought a claim against the respondent, Strathfield Golf Club, in the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales. The dispute centred around an incident that occurred at the golf club where Hudson suffered an injury while using a club provided by the respondent. Hudson sought compensation for non-economic loss and economic loss due to the incident.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the respondent was liable for the injuries suffered by Hudson, and if so, the extent of the damages. The primary focus was on whether the golf club was negligent in providing the club that caused Hudson’s injury and whether this negligence directly resulted in his harm. The court also needed to consider the appropriate measure of compensation for the non-economic loss and the calculation of economic loss.

The court found that the respondent was indeed liable for Hudson's injuries, establishing that there was a breach of duty of care on the part of the golf club in providing an unsafe club. The respondent’s negligence directly caused Hudson’s harm, thus fulfilling the criteria for liability. Regarding the compensation, the court awarded Hudson $3000 for non-economic loss, while deferring the calculation of economic loss pending further submissions from the parties. The court emphasised the importance of detailed evidence for accurately determining economic loss.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The respondent pay to the complainant within 21 days the sum of $3000 for non-economic loss.; 2. The parties provide to the Tribunal further submissions, as directed by the registrar, on the calculation of damages for economic loss.

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.

CITATION:	Hudson -v- Strathfield Golf Club [2000] NSWADT 88
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Steven Hudson RESPONDENT Strathfield Golf Club
FILE NUMBER:	122 of 1997
HEARING DATES:	09/12/99, 08/03/2000, 09/03/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/17/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	07/06/2000
BEFORE:	Britton A - Judicial Member; Edwards K - Member; McDonald O - Member
APPLICATION:	Race Discrimination - In work
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Payne v Parker [1976]1NSWLR 191 Langley v University of NSW (1984) EOC92-018 Director General of Education v Brine IIR Commonwealth v Humphries [1998] 1031 FCA HREOC v Mount Isa Mines LTD(1993) 118 ALR Prakash -v- Bob Brog Enterprises Pty Limited [1999], NSWADT 73 Ardeshirian v Robe River Iron Associates (1990) EOC 92- 299 Metwally v University of Wollongong (1984) EOC Rugema v Gadsten Pty Ltd and Derkes [ 1997] HREOCA 34 Hume v Mulheron [1996] NSWEOT Gomez v Burgmann Seals Australia Pty Limited [1997] NSWEOT Fenwick v Beveridge Building Products Pty Ltd (1986) EOC 92-147 Department of Health v Arumugam (1987) EOC 92-195; (1988) VR 319 Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 543
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT A Tibbey, solicitor RESPONDENT E Brus, barrister
ORDERS:	1. The respondent pay to the complainant within 21 days the sum of $3000 for non-economic loss.; 2. The parties provide to the Tribunal further submissions, as directed by the registrar, on the calculation of damages for economic loss.