JM and JN v QL and QM

Case

[2010] NSWADT 66

12 March 2010


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
JM and JN v QL and QM [2010] NSWADT 66 [2010] NSWADT 66 12 March 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

JM and JN brought complaints against QL and QM concerning alleged incidents of discrimination and vilification. The case was heard by the Anti-Discrimination Board of New South Wales (ADB). The complainants alleged that the respondents had discriminated against them on the basis of their homosexuality and HIV/AIDS status, and that the respondents had also vilified them on the same grounds. The ADB was required to determine whether the complaints were substantiated and, if so, what remedies should be ordered.

The legal issues before the ADB were whether the respondents had engaged in conduct that was discriminatory and vilifying towards the complainants, and if so, what remedies should be ordered. The ADB had to consider the evidence presented by both parties and the relevant provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The ADB had to determine whether the conduct of the respondents was discriminatory or vilifying and, if so, whether it was reasonable for the complainants to feel offended, humiliated or intimidated by the conduct.

The ADB found that the complaints of homosexual vilification against QM were substantiated in part and the complaints of HIV/AIDS vilification against QL and QM were also substantiated in part. The ADB found that QM had engaged in conduct that was vilifying towards the complainants on the basis of their homosexuality, and that QL and QM had engaged in conduct that was vilifying towards the complainants on the basis of their HIV/AIDS status. The ADB found that the conduct of the respondents was unreasonable and that the complainants were reasonable to feel offended, humiliated and intimidated by the conduct. The ADB ordered that QM pay JM and JN $1500 each in damages and that QL pay JM and JN $3,500 each in damages. The ADB also ordered that any application for costs be made within 28 days of the date of these reasons and that any reply to that application be made within a further 28 days. Any application for costs will be determined ‘on the papers’ after that time.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Anti-Discrimination Law

  • Tort Law

Legal Concepts

  • Discrimination

  • Homosexual Vilification

  • HIV/AIDS Vilification

  • Compensatory Damages

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

16

Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 388
Margan v Taufaao [2017] NSWCATAD 216
Cases Cited

5

Statutory Material Cited

2

Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
Briginshaw v Briginshaw [1938] HCA 34
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8