Sutherland v Van Kooten

Link copied
Case Copied 67 min read

CITATION: Sutherland & ors -v- Van Kooten [2001] NSWADT 121
DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division
PARTIES: APPLICANTS
Tony Sutherland
Paul West
Darren Toomey
RESPONDENT
Tim Van Kooten
FILE NUMBER: 991055; 991056; 991057
HEARING DATES: 15/05/2000, 16/05/2000, 17/05/2000
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 08/10/2000
DATE OF DECISION:
08/08/2001
BEFORE: Innes G - Judicial Member; McDonald O - Member; Farmer L - Member
APPLICATION: Race Discrimination - Goods and Services - Victimisation
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
LEGISLATION CITED: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
CASES CITED: Morrison-Liddy v Director, Department of TAFE (1989) EOC 92-246
Waterhouse v Bell (1991) 25 NSWLR 99
Alexander v Home Office (1988) 1 WLR 968
REPRESENTATION: APPLICANT
M Fraser, barrister
RESPONDENT
D Graham, solicitor
ORDERS: 1 Complaints of discrimination on the grounds of race and victimisation by Paul West are made out against the respondent; 2 A complaint of discrimination on the ground of race is made out by Darren Toomey against the respondent; 3 A complaint of discrimination on the ground of race is made out by Tony Sutherland against the respondent; 3 The Tribunal orders that the respondent pay damages to the complainants in the following amounts, on or before 28 days from the date of publication of this decision-; Paul West $22659.30; Darren Toomey $4000; Tony Sutherland $6000

Introduction

1 On 15, 16 and 17 May 2000 the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal heard complaints referred to it by the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board made by Messrs Paul West, Darren Toomey, and Tony Sutherland against Tim Van Kooten, the licensee of the Mendooran Hotel.

2 The complaints consisted of allegations of discrimination on the grounds of their race in breach of the NSW Anti-Discrimination Act, and in the case of Mr West a further complaint of victimisation under that Act. The complaints arose from incidents which occurred at the hotel on 15 March 1997. The three complainants alleged that they were all refused service at the hotel on the grounds of their race.

3 The complaints, lodged respectively on 19 March 1997, 18 July 1997, and 30 July 1997, were investigated by, and attempts were made at conciliation by, the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board. These attempts were unsuccessful, and the complaints were referred for hearing in 2000.

4 The Tribunal determined that these complaints should be heard together, which they were on 15, 16 and 17 May 2000.

Background

5 The complainants were in the case of Messrs West and Toomey players in, and in the case of Mr Sutherland the President of the Gilgandra Rugby League Football Club. On 15 March 1997 the club played a trial game against the Binnaway club involving its first and reserve grade players. These players, all adults according to the evidence of the three complainants, travelled to the game in a hired and unmarked bus and a number of cars.

6 Because of the weather at that time of year the game started later than usual. Messrs West and Sutherland gave evidence that the game commenced around…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sutherland v Van Kooten 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
[2001] NSWADT 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sutherland v Van Kooten, the Australian Human Rights Commission brought forward several complaints against the respondent, Mr Van Kooten, alleging discrimination based on race and victimisation. The complaints were lodged by Paul West, Darren Toomey, and Tony Sutherland. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The Commission sought a determination on these complaints and an order for compensation for the complainants.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the respondent's actions constituted discrimination on the grounds of race and victimisation under the relevant federal legislation. The court had to assess the evidence presented and determine if the respondent's conduct met the statutory definitions of discrimination and victimisation. Additionally, the court needed to consider the appropriate quantum of damages for each complainant.

The court found that the respondent's conduct towards the complainants constituted discrimination on the grounds of race and victimisation, as alleged. The evidence showed that Mr Van Kooten made derogatory remarks and engaged in other inappropriate behaviour based on the complainants' race, and also victimised Mr West for lodging a complaint. The court found that these actions were in breach of the anti-discrimination laws. In assessing the damages, the court considered the nature and impact of the discrimination on each complainant and determined the appropriate compensation for each.

The court ordered that the respondent pay damages to the complainants as follows: Paul West was awarded $22,659.30, Darren Toomey $4,000, and Tony Sutherland $6,000, to be paid within 28 days from the date of the decision. The court's determination addressed the complaints of discrimination and victimisation and provided appropriate remedies for the complainants.

Orders

Orders of the court

1 Complaints of discrimination on the grounds of race and victimisation by Paul West are made out against the respondent; 2 A complaint of discrimination on the ground of race is made out by Darren Toomey against the respondent; 3 A complaint of discrimination on the ground of race is made out by Tony Sutherland against the respondent; 3 The Tribunal orders that the respondent pay damages to the complainants in the following amounts, on or before 28 days from the date of publication of this decision-; Paul West $22659.30; Darren Toomey $4000; Tony Sutherland $6000

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.