Payne v APN News & Media

Link copied
Case Copied 15 min read
CITATION: Payne v APN News & Media [2016] QCATA 140
PARTIES: Tracey Payne
(Applicant/Appellant)
v
APN News & Media (Australia Regional Media)

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER: APL042-16
MATTER TYPE: Appeals
HEARING DATE: 22 August 2016
HEARD AT: Brisbane
DECISION OF: Justice Carmody
Dr J R Forbes, Member
DELIVERED ON: 27 September 2016
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
ORDERS MADE: 1.    Leave to appeal is refused.
CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - GENERAL PRINCIPLES – INTERFERENCE WITH JUDGE’S FINDINGS – FUNCTIONS OF APPELLATE COURT – IN GENERAL – whether error of law in fact finding – test for such error – no error found – principles for granting leave to appeal – leave refused

HUMAN RIGHTS – DISCRIMINATION – GENERALLY – Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) – where the applicant was a lawfully employed sex worker – where the applicant placed advertisements in the respondent’s newspapers – where the applicant alleges that she was discriminated against by the charging of higher amounts for advertising – where the applicant claims the respondent unlawfully published advertisements – whether direct discrimination – whether indirect discrimination – whether victimisation

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) ss 7, 10, 11, 130, Schedule
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 3, 4, 28, 29, 111, 142, 183, 214, 216, 217, 218
Prostitution Act 1999 (Qld) ss 99, 139A

Prostitution Regulation 2014 (Qld) s 15

Australian  Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321
Azzopardi v Tasman UEB Industries Ltd (1985) 4 NSWLR 139
Drew v Bundaberg Regional Council [2012] QPELR 350; [2011] QCA 359
Felton and Anor v Raine and Horne Real Estate [2011] QCATA 330
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Glenwood Properties Pty Ltd v Delmoss Pty Ltd   [1986] 2 Qd R 388
JM v QFG and KG [1998] QCA 228
Kostas v HIA Insurance Services Pty Ltd (2010) 241 CLR 390
Lawless v The Queen (1979) 142 CLR 659
McIver Bulk Liquid Haulage Pty Ltd v Fruehauf Australia Pty Ltd [1989] 2 Qd R 577

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZMDS & Another (2010) 240 CLR 611

Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Eshetu (1999) 197 CLR 611
Myers v Medical Practitioners Board (2007) 18 VR 48
Parramatta City Council v Pestell (1972) 128 CLR 305
Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd v Chasser (Victorian WorkCover Authority) [2011] VSC 597
Pearce v Western Australia [2014] WASCA

Pickering v McArthur [2005] QCA 294

R v Ashley [2005] QCA 293
R v Sharkey [2013] QCA 259
Robinson v Corr [2011] QCATA 302
S v Crimes Compensation Tribunal [1998] 1 VR 83

Secretary of State for Education and Science v Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [1977] AC 1014
W (an infant,) In re [1971] AC 682

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION:

APPLICANT:

Mr C Payne as lay representative for the applicant

RESPONDENT:

Mr C Murdoch of Counsel instructed by Minter Ellison

REASONS FOR DECISION

Carmody J

  1. I have had the benefit of reading a draft of Dr Forbes’ reasons for decision. I agree with them entirely and having nothing to…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Payne v APN News & Media 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
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] QCATA 140
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by Payne against APN News & Media. The applicant alleged that she had been subjected to discrimination under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) when placing advertisements in the respondent's newspapers. She claimed that she was charged higher amounts for advertising due to her occupation as a lawfully employed sex worker, and that the respondent unlawfully published advertisements that discriminated against her. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The primary legal issues before the court involved determining whether the applicant had suffered direct discrimination, indirect discrimination, or victimisation under the Act. The court was also required to assess whether the judge's findings of fact were subject to any error of law. The principles governing the granting of leave to appeal and the functions of the appellate court in reviewing such decisions were central to the court's deliberations.

The court found that there was no error of law in the judge's findings. It held that the applicant had not demonstrated any direct or indirect discrimination, nor had she been subjected to victimisation as defined by the Act. The court emphasised that the function of an appellate court is to correct errors of law, and it found no such errors in the primary judge's decision. Consequently, the court refused the applicant's request for leave to appeal.

No further orders were made beyond the refusal of leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to appeal is refused.

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.