FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| KANAPATHY v IN DE BRAEKT (No.4) | [2013] FCCA 1368 |
| Catchwords: WORDS AND PHRASES – “prick”. |
| Legislation: Australian Human Rights Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PH(1), 46PO(1) and (3) |
| Applicant: | RAJANDRAN KANAPATHY |
| Respondent: | MEGAN IN DE BRAEKT |
| File Number: | PEG 192 of 2010 |
| Judgment of: | Judge Lucev |
| Hearing date: | 17 September 2013 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 17 September 2013 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 25 September 2013 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr S Millman |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Slater & Gordon Lawyers |
| For the Respondent: | No appearance |
DECLARATION AND ORDERS
The Court declares that on 16 January 2009 the respondent engaged in conduct rendered unlawful by s.18C of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) by her offensive behaviour toward the applicant because of his national origin, specifically by:
(a)telling the applicant that she knew he was from…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Kanapathy v In De Braekt (No 4) 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2013] FCCA 1368
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether the respondent's conduct constituted an unlawful act under the relevant human rights legislation, specifically concerning discrimination based on national origin. The court also had to consider what remedies, if any, were appropriate, including whether to order an apology and attendance at an anti-racism training course, and whether such orders would be futile. Finally, the court needed to assess whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of loss or damage to warrant compensation.
Judge Lucev found that the respondent's use of the word "prick" towards Mr. Kanapathy, in the context of a dispute over Mr. Kanapathy's national origin, amounted to abusive language and an unlawful act. The court reasoned that while the term itself might be considered mild in some contexts, its use in this instance, coupled with the reference to national origin, rendered it discriminatory and offensive. The court concluded that ordering an apology and attendance at anti-racism training would not be futile, as it served a public interest in denouncing such conduct and promoting respectful interactions. However, the court found that the applicant had failed to adduce sufficient evidence to establish any quantifiable loss or damage, and therefore, no compensation was awarded.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.