Murphy v David Jones Limited - [2002] NSWADTAP 42

Appeal Panel

CITATION: Murphy -v- David Jones Limited [2002] NSWADTAP 42

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Emmett Joel Murphy Junior
RESPONDENT
David Jones Limited

FILE NUMBER: 029038

HEARING DATES: 09/12/2002

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/09/2002

DATE OF DECISION:
12/17/2002

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Murphy -v- David Jones Limited [2002] NSWADT 140

BEFORE: Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Needham J - Judicial Member; Weule B - Member

CATCHWORDS: no question of law identified

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 011012

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 08/15/2002

LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Legal Profession Act 1987

CASES CITED: Mayhew v A [1999] NSWADTAP 1
Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8
Brooks Maher v Cheung [2001] NSWADT 18

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
In person
RESPONDENT
R McIlroy

ORDERS: 1. Appeal dismissed; 2. The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs on the hearing of the Appeal. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of costs, it is to be determined by a costs assessor in accordance with the Legal Profession Act 1987.

1 This is an appeal against a decision made by the Tribunal on 15 August 2002. The decision was made in response to a complaint by the appellant, Emmett Joel Murphy Junior, that he had been discriminated against on the ground of race by the respondent, David Jones Ltd. Mr Murphy also alleged that the respondent had victimised him. Both complaints were brought pursuant to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (ADA).

2 The Tribunal made the following orders:

3 The Appeal Panel has jurisdiction to hear this matter under s 113(1) of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (ADT Act). Section 113(2) allows a party to appeal to an Appeal Panel of the Tribunal "on any question of law." With leave, the appeal may extend to a review of the merits of the appealable decision. Mr Murphy applied for the Tribunal to grant leave for the appeal to be extended to the merits of the Tribunal’s decision.

Notice of Appeal

4 The Notice of Appeal filed by the appellant on 27 August 2002 had five grounds of appeal. They are:

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Murphy v David Jones Limited

Details

AGLC: Murphy v David Jones Limited [2002] NSWADTAP 42
Case: [2002] NSWADTAP 42
Decision Date: 12/17/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Murphy v David Jones Limited was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the appellant, Murphy, contested a decision made by a lower court that dismissed his claim against the respondent, David Jones Limited. The appellant alleged that he had suffered injuries due to the negligence of the respondent's employees while shopping at one of their stores. The lower court found in favour of the respondent, and Murphy appealed this decision.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the lower court had erred in dismissing the appellant's claim of negligence. The appellant argued that the respondent had failed to provide a safe environment for customers, which led to his injuries. The respondent contended that there was no evidence to support the appellant's claims, and the lower court's decision was correct. The Court of Appeal needed to determine if the lower court had applied the correct legal principles and made the correct findings of fact.

In assessing the appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the evidence presented in the lower court and reviewed the application of the relevant legal principles. The court found that the lower court had correctly applied the law and made findings of fact that were supported by the evidence. The Court of Appeal held that there was no error of law in the lower court's decision and dismissed the appeal. Consequently, the appellant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, with an option for a costs assessor to determine the amount if the parties could not agree.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal dismissed; 2. The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs on the hearing of the Appeal. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of costs, it is to be determined by a costs assessor in accordance with the Legal Profession Act 1987.

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.

CITATION:	Murphy -v- David Jones Limited [2002] NSWADTAP 42
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Emmett Joel Murphy Junior RESPONDENT David Jones Limited
FILE NUMBER:	029038
HEARING DATES:	09/12/2002
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	12/09/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	12/17/2002
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Murphy -v- David Jones Limited [2002] NSWADT 140
BEFORE:	Hennessy N - Magistrate (Deputy President); Needham J - Judicial Member; Weule B - Member
CATCHWORDS:	no question of law identified
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	011012
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	08/15/2002
LEGISLATION CITED:	Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Legal Profession Act 1987
CASES CITED:	Mayhew v A [1999] NSWADTAP 1 Brandusoiu -v- Commissioner of Police [1999] NSWADTAP 8 Brooks Maher v Cheung [2001] NSWADT 18
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT In person RESPONDENT R McIlroy
ORDERS:	1. Appeal dismissed; 2. The Appellant to pay the Respondent's costs on the hearing of the Appeal. If the parties are unable to agree on the amount of costs, it is to be determined by a costs assessor in accordance with the Legal Profession Act 1987.