Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd v Moreira & anor (EOD) - [2002] NSWADTAP 44

Appeal Panel

CITATION: Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd v Moreira & anor (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 44

PARTIES: APPELLANT
Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd
RESPONDENTS
Nestor Moreira and Varina Moreira

FILE NUMBER: 029025

HEARING DATES: 27/08/02

SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/27/2002

DATE OF DECISION:
12/20/2002

DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
Moreira & anor v Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited [2002] NSWADT 70

BEFORE: Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Loukas C - Judicial Member; Alt M - Member

CATCHWORDS: adequacy of reasons - evidence - mutually corroborative evidence - statutory interpretation

MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter

FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 011061

DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 05/10/2002

LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Evidence Act 1995

CASES CITED: Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5
Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness; James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; 49 NSWLR 262
Jones v Great Western Railway Co (1930) 47 TLR 39
Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR(NSW) 301
Layton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Lewis & anor v Registrar Consumer Claims Tribunal & anor [1999] NSWSC 381
Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472
Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Athens & anor v Randwick City Council [2002] NSWCA 83

REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
B Vukedinovic, barrister
RESPONDENT
In person

ORDERS: Date of Orders: 27/08/02; Appeal dismissed in part.; Appeal allowed as to the failure of the Tribunal to determine the issue of mitigation of damages.; Remitted to the Tribunal below to determine, on the evidence at first instance, whether there was an attempt to mitigate damages, and if so, the extent to which the award of damages is affected.

1 The Appellant, Peter Roberts Motors Pty. Limited, appeals against a decision of the Tribunal of the 10 May 2002. That decision found the Appellant had contravened the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 in that their employee discriminated against the Respondents on the grounds of their race, in the provision of services and/or in the terms under which those services were provided to the Respondents.

2 The evidence before the Tribunal is set out at paras 4 to 58 inclusive of the decision and the findings of fact are set out at paras 59 to 64 inclusive of the decision. In essence, the complainants/Respondents attended the Appellant’s car yard on 2 June 1999 with a view to purchasing a car after trade-in of their existing vehicle. The Appellant’s employee discussed a proposed trade-in price with Varina Moreira, who then communicated it to her father, Nestor Moreira, in Spanish, that being his dominant language. In the midst of that conversation in Spanish, the Appellant’s employee demanded that the Respondents leave the yard.

3 The Appellant alleges that the Tribunal below made the following errors of law:-

Anti Discrimination Act 1977

(ii) The Tribunal misconceived the requirements of section 7 of the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd v Moreira & anor (EOD) 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: [2002] NSWADTAP 44
Decision Date: 12/20/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd versus Moreira & anor, the dispute before the court centred around issues of statutory interpretation, the adequacy of reasons given by the Tribunal, and the nature of the evidence presented. The case was heard in the court of appeal. The original dispute involved a claim for damages made by the plaintiff, Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd, against the defendants, Moreira and another party, concerning an alleged breach of contract. The crux of the case involved the interpretation of relevant statutory provisions and the adequacy of the reasons provided by the Tribunal for its decisions.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the Tribunal's interpretation of the statutory provisions was correct and whether the reasons provided were sufficient. Specifically, the court had to examine whether the Tribunal adequately addressed the question of mitigating damages as required by the statutory framework. The court also considered whether the evidence presented was sufficiently robust and whether it met the threshold for being mutually corroborative.

The court found that the Tribunal had erred in not determining the issue of mitigating damages. It held that the statutory framework mandated such a consideration and that the Tribunal's failure to do so was a significant oversight. The court held that the reasons provided by the Tribunal were inadequate in this respect. As a result, the court dismissed part of the appeal but allowed it in respect of the failure to address the mitigation of damages. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal to reassess the evidence and determine whether there was any attempt to mitigate damages and, if so, the extent to which this affects the award of damages.

The orders of the court were to dismiss part of the appeal but allow it in respect of the issue of mitigating damages. The case was remitted to the Tribunal to determine, based on the evidence at first instance, whether there was an attempt to mitigate damages and, if so, the extent to which the award of damages is affected. This decision underscores the importance of addressing all relevant issues mandated by statute and providing comprehensive reasons for any findings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Orders: 27/08/02; Appeal dismissed in part.; Appeal allowed as to the failure of the Tribunal to determine the issue of mitigation of damages.; Remitted to the Tribunal below to determine, on the evidence at first instance, whether there was an attempt to mitigate damages, and if so, the extent to which the award of damages is affected.

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:	Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd v Moreira & anor (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 44
PARTIES:	APPELLANT Peter Roberts Motors Pty Ltd RESPONDENTS Nestor Moreira and Varina Moreira
FILE NUMBER:	029025
HEARING DATES:	27/08/02
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED:	08/27/2002
DATE OF DECISION:	12/20/2002
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	Moreira & anor v Peter Robert Motors Pty Limited [2002] NSWADT 70
BEFORE:	Latham M - DCJ (Deputy President); Loukas C - Judicial Member; Alt M - Member
CATCHWORDS:	adequacy of reasons - evidence - mutually corroborative evidence - statutory interpretation
MATTER FOR DECISION:	Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL:	011061
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL:	05/10/2002
LEGISLATION CITED:	Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Evidence Act 1995
CASES CITED:	Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Seltsam Pty Limited v McGuiness; James Hardie & Coy Pty Limited v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29; 49 NSWLR 262 Jones v Great Western Railway Co (1930) 47 TLR 39 Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR(NSW) 301 Layton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352 Lewis & anor v Registrar Consumer Claims Tribunal & anor [1999] NSWSC 381 Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472 Soulemezis v Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247 Athens & anor v Randwick City Council [2002] NSWCA 83
REPRESENTATION:	APPELLANT B Vukedinovic, barrister RESPONDENT In person
ORDERS:	Date of Orders: 27/08/02; Appeal dismissed in part.; Appeal allowed as to the failure of the Tribunal to determine the issue of mitigation of damages.; Remitted to the Tribunal below to determine, on the evidence at first instance, whether there was an attempt to mitigate damages, and if so, the extent to which the award of damages is affected.