Jones & Anor v Ekermawi

Case [2009] NSWCA 388



New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.
HEARING DATE(S): 18 November 2009
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

7 December 2009
JUDGMENT OF: McColl JA at 1; Handley AJA at 2; Sackville AJA at 3
DECISION: 1. Grant the application for leave to appeal
2. Dismiss the appeal
3. The applicants must pay Mr Ekermawi’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal
CATCHWORDS: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - procedural fairness - application in the Administrative Decisions Tribunal for leave to proceed with complaint of racial vilification - misunderstanding of Tribunal's decision by complainant - whether Tribunal denied complainant procedural fairness
LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997, s 73
Anti Discrimination Act 1977, ss 20C, 87A, 87B, 88, 89, 89A, 90, 92, 93A, 96, 102, 108
Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004
Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act 2001, s 35
Supreme Court Act 1970, ss 69, 101(2)(r)
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Applicant NAFF of 2002 v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] HCA 62; 221 CLR 1
Collection House Ltd v Taylor [2004] VSC 49
Commonwealth v BIS Cleanaway Limited [2008] NSWCA 170
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industrial Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Deva v University of Western Sydney [2008] NSWCA 137
Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143
Ekermawi v Jones [2008] NSWADT 93
Italiano v Carbone [2005] NSWCA 177
Minister for Immigration, Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs; Ex parte Lam (2003) 214 CLR 1
SAAP v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] HCA 24; 228 CLR 294
Salido v Nominal Defendant (1993) 32 NSWLR 524
Winn v Blueprint Instant Printing Pty Ltd [2002] VSC 295
Xu v Sydney West Area Health Service [2006] NSWADT 3
PARTIES: Alan Jones (First Applicant)
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (Second Applicant)
Sam Ekermawi (Respondent)
FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40186/09
COUNSEL: R Beech-Jones SC and R Graycar (Applicants)
P Batley (Respondent)
SOLICITORS: Baker & McKenzie (Applicants)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Respondent)
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30044/08
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Schmidt AJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 March 2009
LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Ekermawi v Administrative Decisions Tribunal of New South Wales [2009] NSWSC 143




                          CA 40186 of 2009

                          McCOLL JA
                          HANDLEY AJA
                          SACKVILLE AJA

                          7 December 2009
JONES & ANOR v EKERMAWI
Judgment

1 McCOLL JA: I agree with Sackville AJA.

2 HANDLEY AJA: I agree with Sackville AJA.

3 SACKVILLE AJA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court (Schmidt AJ). The applicants for leave are, respectively, a radio broadcaster (“Mr Jones”) and the licensee of a radio station broadcasting in Sydney (“2GB”).

4 The first respondent to the application (“Mr Ekermawi”) made a complaint in 2006…

Continue reading Jones & Anor v Ekermawi

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Jones & Anor v Ekermawi [2009] NSWCA 388
Case
[2009] NSWCA 388
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Jones and another, sought leave to appeal a decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal (ADT) concerning their application for leave to proceed with a complaint of racial vilification against Mr Ekermawi. The core of the dispute revolved around the applicants' assertion that the ADT had denied them procedural fairness due to a misunderstanding of the Tribunal's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the ADT had failed to afford the applicants procedural fairness. This question arose from the applicants' contention that they did not understand the Tribunal's reasons for refusing leave to proceed with their racial vilification complaint, leading them to believe they had grounds to challenge the decision on fairness grounds.

The Court of Appeal found that the ADT had provided adequate reasons for its decision, and any misunderstanding on the part of the applicants was not attributable to a denial of procedural fairness by the Tribunal. The judges were satisfied that the ADT had properly considered the application and provided sufficient explanation for its determination.

The Court of Appeal granted the application for leave to appeal but ultimately dismissed the appeal. The applicants were ordered to pay Mr Ekermawi’s costs of both the application for leave to appeal and the appeal itself.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant the application for leave to appeal

2. Dismiss the appeal

3. The applicants must pay Mr Ekermawi’s costs of the application for leave to appeal and of the appeal

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.