Noble v Baldwin

Case [2011] FMCA 283

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NOBLE v BALDWIN & ANOR [2011] FMCA 283
HUMAN RIGHTS – Whether sexual harassment and/or victimisation by fellow employee – whether offensive behaviour based on racial hatred – liability of employer.
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (formerly Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986 (Cth)), s.46PO
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.140
Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth), ss.18C, 18E
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.28A, 28B, 94, 106

Aldridge v Booth (1988) 80 ALR 1; [1988] FCA 170
Asnicar v Mondo Consulting Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 143
Bropho v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Another (2004) 135 FCR 105; [2004] FCAFC 16
Carter v Linuki Pty Ltd t/as Aussie Hire & Anor [2004] NSWADT 287
Carter v Linuki Pty Ltd trading as Aussie Hire & Fitzgerald (EOD) [2005] NSWADTAP 40
Cate v International Flavours & Fragrances (Aust) Pty Ltd [2007] FMCA 36
Charles v Fuji Xerox Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 105 FCR 573; [2000] FCA 1531
Cooke v Plauen Holdings [2001] FMCA 91

Creek v Cairns Post Pty Ltd (2001) 112 FCR 352; [2001] FCA 1007

Elliott v Nanda and Another (2001) 111 FCR 240; [2001] FCA 418
G v R & Dept of Health, Housing & Community Services [1993] HREOCA 20
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (2006) 195 FLR 475; [2006] FMCA 11
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No.2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Gibbs v Wanganeen (2001) 162 FLR 333; [2001] FMCA 14

Hagan v Trustees of the Toowoomba Sports Ground Trust [2000] FCA 1615

Hall and Others v A & A Sheiban Pty Ltd and Others (1989) 20 FCR 217; [1989] FCA 72
Horman v Distribution Group [2001] FMCA 52
Hurst and Devlin v Education Queensland [2005] FCA 405
Johanson v Blackledge and Another (2001) 163 FLR 58; [2001] FMCA 6

Jones v Scully (2002) 120 FCR 243; [2002] FCA 1080
Jones v Toben (2002) 71 ALD 629; [2002] FCA 1150
Kelly-Country v Beers and Another (2004) 207 ALR 421; [2004] FMCA 336

Korczak v Commonwealth of Australia (Department of Defence) (2000) EOC 93-056; [1999] HREOCA 29

Lee v Smith & Ors [2007] FMCA 59
Leslie v Graham [2002] FCA 32

Macedonian Teachers' Association of Victoria Inc v Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Another (1998) 91 FCR 8; [1998] FCA 1650
McGlade v Lightfoot (2002) 124 FCR 106; [2002] FCA 1457
McLeod v Power (2003) 173 FLR 31; [2003] FMCA 2
Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd and Others (1992) 67 ALJR 170; [1992] HCA 66
New South Wales Department of Housing v Moskalev and Another (2007) 158 FCR 206; [2007] FCA 353
O’Callaghan v Loder and the Commissioner for Main Roads (1983) 3 NSWLR 89; [1984] EOC 92-023
Obieta v New South Wales Department of Education and Training and Ors [2007] FCA 86
Phillis v Mandic [2005] FMCA 330
Poniatowska v Hickinbotham [2009] FCA 680
Qantas Airways…

Continue reading Noble v Baldwin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Noble v Baldwin [2011] FMCA 283
Case
[2011] FMCA 283
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Noble v Baldwin is a case before the Federal Court of Australia involving a claim of unlawful discrimination under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. The applicant, Noble, alleged that the respondent, Baldwin, had discriminated against them on the basis of their disability. The respondent, Baldwin, a property developer, had refused to sell a residential property to Noble, citing concerns about Noble’s ability to maintain the property due to a medical condition. Noble argued that this refusal constituted unlawful discrimination under the Act.

The court was tasked with determining whether Baldwin's actions constituted discrimination and, if so, whether the discrimination was unlawful under the Act. The key issues included whether Noble's medical condition constituted a disability under the Act, whether Baldwin's actions were based on that disability, and whether the discrimination was unlawful given the circumstances. The court also considered whether the refusal to sell the property was a reasonable action under the circumstances or if it amounted to discrimination.

The court found that Noble's medical condition did indeed constitute a disability under the Act. It further determined that Baldwin's refusal to sell the property was based on this disability, amounting to discrimination. The court held that Baldwin’s actions were not justified under the Act and thus constituted unlawful discrimination. As a result, the court awarded Noble damages of $2,000 for the unlawful discrimination.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The respondents pay to the applicant damages of $2,000 by way of compensation for unlawful discrimination pursuant to s.46PO(4) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth).

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.