Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Limited

Set aside by Appeal: Set aside by appeal on 25/10/02

CITATION:	Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Limited [2000] NSWADT 77
DIVISION:	Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES:	APPLICANT Ali Kazak RESPONDENT John Fairfax Publications Limited
FILE NUMBER:	991094
HEARING DATES:	27/03/00
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	04/14/2000
DATE OF DECISION:	06/22/2000
BEFORE:	Hennessy N (Deputy President); Farmer L - Member; Jowett T - Member
APPLICATION:	Racial - Vilification - Vilification - Racial
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED:	Brown v Classification Review Board (1998) 154 ALR 67 Coco v The Queen (1994) 179 CLR 427 I W v The City of Perth (1997) EOC 92-892 Harou-Sourdon v TCN Channel Nine Pty lTD [1994] EOC 92-604 Wagga Wagga Aboriginal Action Group v Eldridge {1995} EOC 92-701 R v D and E Marinkovic [1996] EOC 92-841 Hellenic Council of NSW V Apoleski and the Macedonian Youth Association (1995) NSWEOT (25/9/97 Malco & others v Massaris & others [1998] NSWEOT (12/2/98) Lewis v Daily Telegraph Ltd [10964] AC 234 Mirror Newspapers Pty Ltd v Harrison (1982) 149 CLR 293 Neal v Sunday New Auckland Newspaper Publications (1985) 92-130 Nealy v Johnston and Long Church of Jesus Christ Christian-Aryan Nations (1989) 10CHRR D/6450 Taylor v Canadian Human Rights Commission (1990) 75 DLR (4th) 577 Bryant v Queensland Newspaper Pty Ltd [1997] HREOC 23, 15 May 1997 Aegean Macedonian Association of Australia v Karagiannakis (1999) NSWADT 130 Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520
REPRESENTATION:	APPLICANT In person RESPONDENT R Lancaster
ORDERS:	1. The complaint is substantiated.; 2. Matter stood over, part heard, to determine appropriate remedies.

1 These proceedings concern a complaint of racial vilification made by Mr Ali Kazak against The Australian Financial Review. Mr Kazak alleges that an article written by Tom Switzer (the Switzer article) published on 23 December 1998, contravenes s 20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (the Act).

2 On 6 September 1999, the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (the President) referred Mr Kazak’s complaint to the Tribunal pursuant to s 94(1) of the Act. Section 96 of the Act provides that the Tribunal “shall hold an inquiry into each complaint” referred to it by the President.

3 Mr Kazak represented himself at the hearing. The respondent was represented by Mr Lancaster of counsel instructed by Freehill Hollingdale and Page, solicitors. At the conclusion of the hearing we accepted the respondent’s offer to submit further material in relation to certain aspects of defamation law on the basis that it may provide some assistance in the interpretation of the relevant legislation. Mr Kazak did not object and the respondent filed additional material on 14 April 2000.

Correct respondent

4 The respondent was named in the referral of this complaint from the President as The Australian Financial Review. Mr Lancaster agreed that The Australian Financial Review was not a legal entity and that John Fairfax Publications Ltd (Fairfax Publications) should be substituted for The Australian Financial Review as the respondent in these proceedings. Tom Switzer…