Malenha v Sullivan
Case
•
[2017] NSWCATAD 222
•11 December 2017
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Malenha v Sullivan [2017] NSWCATAD 222
[2017] NSWCATAD 222
11 December 2017
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Malenha v Sullivan is a case involving a dispute concerning racial vilification. The applicant, Malenha, alleged that the respondent, Sullivan, made derogatory comments towards her, including calling her a “Portuguese pig.” The case was heard in the Local Court of New South Wales. The primary issue before the court was whether the respondent's conduct constituted racial vilification, and if so, what remedies should be granted. The court also needed to determine the appropriate compensation for economic and non-economic loss.
The court found that the term “Portuguese pig” was a racial epithet and that the respondent's conduct was indeed a case of racial vilification. In determining the compensation, the court considered the principles of awarding damages for economic loss, which involves quantifiable financial loss, and non-economic loss, which encompasses more subjective aspects such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy included an apology, public display of the apology, and a monetary compensation of $2,500. Furthermore, if the respondent failed to comply with the ordered apology, additional damages of $2,500 were to be paid.
The court issued several orders, including that the respondent must apologise to the applicant by a specific date and place the apology in a public location. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $2,500. If the respondent did not comply with the apology order, they were to pay an additional $2,500 in damages. This ruling reinforces the importance of addressing racial vilification and the court's role in providing both punitive and compensatory remedies.
The court found that the term “Portuguese pig” was a racial epithet and that the respondent's conduct was indeed a case of racial vilification. In determining the compensation, the court considered the principles of awarding damages for economic loss, which involves quantifiable financial loss, and non-economic loss, which encompasses more subjective aspects such as pain, suffering, and loss of amenity. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy included an apology, public display of the apology, and a monetary compensation of $2,500. Furthermore, if the respondent failed to comply with the ordered apology, additional damages of $2,500 were to be paid.
The court issued several orders, including that the respondent must apologise to the applicant by a specific date and place the apology in a public location. Additionally, the respondent was ordered to pay the applicant $2,500. If the respondent did not comply with the apology order, they were to pay an additional $2,500 in damages. This ruling reinforces the importance of addressing racial vilification and the court's role in providing both punitive and compensatory remedies.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Human Rights Law
Legal Concepts
-
Discrimination
-
Racial Vilification
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Malenha v Sullivan [2017] NSWCATAD 222
Most Recent Citation
Edwards v Western NSW Local Health District [2024] NSWCATAD 121
Cases Citing This Decision
10
Duan v Bridge
[2024] NSWCATAD 349
Grass v McIntosh
[2024] NSWCATAD 224
Southey v Butler
[2024] NSWCATAD 146
Cases Cited
4
Statutory Material Cited
1
Sunol v Collier (No 2)
[2012] NSWCA 44
Coco v the Queen
[1994] HCA 15
Coco v the Queen
[1994] HCA 15