Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) - [2012] NSWADTAP 33

Administrative Decisions Tribunal

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) [2012] NSWADTAP 33
Hearing dates: 21 December 2011
Decision date: 02 October 2012
Jurisdiction: Appeal Panel - Internal
Before: R Madgwick, Deputy President
R Perrignon, Judicial member
E Hayes, Non-Judicial member
Decision:
The appeal is dismissed. Parties are to file submissions on costs within 14 days of this decision.

Catchwords: Facts reconsidered in view of error of law
Cases Cited: Jones And Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 19
Jones and Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (No 2) (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 62
Murtough v NSW Bar Association [2011] NSW ADT 243
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Alan Jones (Appellant/Cross Respondent) Harbour Radio Pty Limited (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
Keysar Trad (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Representation: Counsel
K Eastman (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
K Nomchong (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Baker McKenzie (Appellant/Cross Respondent)
Turner Freeman Lawyers (Respondent/Cross Appellant)

File Number(s): 109004,109005
Decision under appeal

Citation:

Trad v Jones & anor (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 318

Date of Decision:

2009-12-21 00:00:00

Before:

Equal Opportunity Division

File Number(s):

071036

REASON FOR DECISION

In Jones and Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (No 2) (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 62 (21 December 2011), our second decision in a set of cross-appeals, we upheld Mr Trad's complaint of an error of law, and invited further submissions as to the merits of his complaint in view of the legal error. (For a full understanding it is necessary also to see our first decision, Jones And Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 19 (27 April 2011)).

In the second decision we said:

"Preliminary view of the facts

The targeted group

45.It is impossible for us not to have formed a tentative view of the factual questions arising as a result of the success of Mr Trad's appeal on questions of law. It may shorten and better focus any further submissions if we outline that view.

46.It is to be remembered that the Schedule B material complained of is relatively confined and that the other material set out or summarised in the Appendix is contextual merely. It is also the case that the relevant context of the Schedule B broadcasts for the ordinary reasonable listener was the material that preceded each of them.

47.The first question is who was targeted by Mr Jones' and/or his callers' criticisms. It will suffice for Mr Trad to succeed if we conclude that the ordinary reasonable listener would conclude that the group targeted consisted of Muslims considered as religious adherents who shared characteristics of their religious group that can fairly be seen as so closely akin, having regard to the general objects and purposes of the Act, to those of an ethnic group that it is reasonable to call the group one of ethno-religious origin, even if in current, ordinary language it would or might not fairly be said that the group has an ethnic origin.

48.The Tribunal below negatived the narrow question whether Lebanese Muslims were targeted and, while 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.

Continue reading Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD)

Details

AGLC: Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) [2012] NSWADTAP 33
Case: [2012] NSWADTAP 33
Decision Date: 02 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) was heard by the court, where Trad, the appellant, sought reconsideration of the facts in light of an alleged error of law. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of a specific legal principle, which the appellant believed had not been correctly addressed in the previous judgment. The court was tasked with determining whether the error of law alleged by the appellant warranted a re-examination of the facts.

The legal issues before the court included the proper application of the legal principle in question and whether the alleged error of law was indeed significant enough to justify a re-examination of the facts. The court had to consider whether the previous judgment contained a material error that affected the outcome of the case and whether such an error warranted reconsideration under the applicable legal framework.

Upon review, the court found that the alleged error of law did not materially impact the outcome of the case. The court determined that the previous judgment correctly applied the relevant legal principles, and any perceived error was not of a nature that would require a re-examination of the facts. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original decision was upheld.

In light of the dismissal of the appeal, the court directed that the parties file submissions on costs within 14 days of the decision. This directive ensured that the financial implications of the appeal were addressed in a timely manner, following the established legal procedures.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed. Parties are to file submissions on costs within 14 days of this decision.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Trad v Jones (No. 3) (EOD) [2012] NSWADTAP 33
Hearing dates:	21 December 2011
Decision date:	02 October 2012
Jurisdiction:	Appeal Panel - Internal
Before:	R Madgwick, Deputy President R Perrignon, Judicial member E Hayes, Non-Judicial member
Decision:	The appeal is dismissed. Parties are to file submissions on costs within 14 days of this decision.
Catchwords:	Facts reconsidered in view of error of law
Cases Cited:	Jones And Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 19 Jones and Harbour Radio Pty Limited v Trad (No 2) (EOD) [2011] NSWADTAP 62 Murtough v NSW Bar Association [2011] NSW ADT 243
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Alan Jones (Appellant/Cross Respondent) Harbour Radio Pty Limited (Appellant/Cross Respondent) Keysar Trad (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
Representation:	Counsel K Eastman (Appellant/Cross Respondent) K Nomchong (Respondent/Cross Appellant) Baker McKenzie (Appellant/Cross Respondent) Turner Freeman Lawyers (Respondent/Cross Appellant)
File Number(s):	109004,109005
Decision under appeal	Citation: Trad v Jones & anor (No 3) [2009] NSWADT 318 Date of Decision: 2009-12-21 00:00:00 Before: Equal Opportunity Division File Number(s): 071036