CITATION: Trad v Jones & anor (No. 3) [2009] NSWADT 318 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division PARTIES: Applicant:
Keysar TradFirst Respondent:
Second Respondent:
Alan Jones
Harbour Radio Pty LtdFILE NUMBER: 071036 HEARING DATES: 12 & 13 August 2009 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 4 September 2009
DATE OF DECISION:
21 December 2009BEFORE: Britton A - Deputy President; Bolt M - Non-Judicial Member; Kelleghan D - Non-Judicial Member CATCHWORDS: Racial vilification LEGISLATION CITED: Administrative Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Anti-Discrimination Amendment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2004
Radiocommunications Act 1992 (Cth)
Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth)CASES CITED: Alexander v Home Office [1998] 2 All En 118
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32
Burns v Laws (EOD) [2008] NSWADTAP 32
Burns v Laws (No 2)[2007] NSWADT 47
Burns v Radio 2UW Sydney Pty Ltd [2004] NSWADT 267
Commissioner of Police, NSW Police v Mooney (No 3) (EOD) [2004] NSWADTAP 22
Dimozantos v The Queen (No2) (1993) 178 CLR 122
Farquhar v Bottom [1980] 2 NSWLR 380
Hall v Sheiban (1985) ALR 503
John Fairfax Publications Ltd v Kazak [2002] NSWADT 35
Jones v Toben No 2 (2003) 199 ALR 1
Kunhi v University of New England [2008] NSWADT 333
London Artists Ltd v Littler [1969] 2 QB 375
Nguyen v Cosmopolitan Homes [2008] NSWCA 246
Nicholls & Nicholls v Director-General Department of Education and Training (No 2) [2009]
Toll Pty Limited trading as Toll Express v Abdulrahman [2007] NSWADTAP 70
Trad v Jones & anor [2008] NSWADT 272
Velosky v Karagiannis [2002] NSWADT 18
Western Aboriginal Legal Service v Jones [2000] NSWADT 102REPRESENTATION: Applicant Representative:
Respondent Representative:
K Nomchong, barrister
K Eastman, barristerORDERS: 1. The complaint of racial vilification as against the first and second respondents in respect of Schedule A of the Points of Claim is substantiated. The balance of the complaint is dismissed
2. The respondents are to pay the applicant within 21 days, damages in the sum of $10,000, for which they are jointly and severally liable.
3. Within six months of the date of these orders the second respondent is to conduct a review in accordance with [245] of these Reasons.
4. The parties are directed to confer about the time, form, extent and manner of publication of the apology to be issued in accordance with these Reasons. If the Tribunal is not notified within eight weeks of the date of these orders that agreement has been reached directions will be issued under s 108(2)(d) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 about the details of the apology.
5. Any application for costs in relation to these proceedings, together with supporting submissions, must be filed and served within 28 days of the date of these reasons. Within a further 28 days, the opposing party is to file and serve submissions in reply.
6. The matter of costs is to be resolved ‘on the papers’, under s 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.
REASONS FOR DECISION
1 For a number of days in April 2005, Mr Alan…
Continue reading Trad v Jones (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Trad v Jones (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 318
- Case
- [2009] NSWADT 318
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the AAT included whether the remarks made by the respondents amounted to racial vilification, as defined under the Anti-Discrimination Act, and whether the respondents were liable for the alleged vilification. Additionally, the Tribunal had to determine the appropriate remedy and compensation for the applicant.
In its decision, the AAT found that the complaint of racial vilification against the first and second respondents was substantiated in respect of Schedule A of the Points of Claim. The Tribunal held that the remarks made by the respondents were racially derogatory and targeted the applicant based on his race, thereby constituting racial vilification. However, the balance of the complaint was dismissed. The AAT ordered the respondents to pay the applicant damages in the sum of $10,000, with the respondents being jointly and severally liable. Furthermore, the second respondent was directed to conduct a review within six months of the date of the orders. The parties were also directed to confer about the details of the apology to be issued to the applicant, with directions to be issued if an agreement was not reached within eight weeks.
The AAT made several orders, including the substantiation of the complaint against the respondents, the payment of damages to the applicant, a review to be conducted by the second respondent, and directions for the publication of an apology. The matter of costs was to be resolved on the papers, under s 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The complaint of racial vilification as against the first and second respondents in respect of Schedule A of the Points of Claim is substantiated. The balance of the complaint is dismissed
2. The respondents are to pay the applicant within 21 days, damages in the sum of $10,000, for which they are jointly and severally liable.
3. Within six months of the date of these orders the second respondent is to conduct a review in accordance with [245] of these Reasons.
4. The parties are directed to confer about the time, form, extent and manner of publication of the apology to be issued in accordance with these Reasons. If the Tribunal is not notified within eight weeks of the date of these orders that agreement has been reached directions will be issued under s 108(2)(d) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 about the details of the apology.
5. Any application for costs in relation to these proceedings, together with supporting submissions, must be filed and served within 28 days of the date of these reasons. Within a further 28 days, the opposing party is to file and serve submissions in reply.
6. The matter of costs is to be resolved ‘on the papers’, under s 76 of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997.
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.