Administrative Decisions Tribunal
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Trad v Jones (No 5) [2013] NSWADT 127 Hearing dates: 30 April 2013 Decision date: 05 June 2013 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs from 6 June 2007 as agreed or assessed.
Catchwords: COSTS - complaint of racial vilification by Keyser Trad against Alan Jones and radio station 2 GB - part of complaint substantiated and part dismissed - each party applied for costs - operation of doctrine of res judicata - whether fair to award costs - unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement - relative strengths of the claims Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997
Anti-Discrimination Act 1977Cases Cited: Trad v Jones & Anor [2008] NSWADT 272
Trad v Jones (No 2) [2009] NSWADT 206
Trad v Jones & anor (No. 3) [2009] NSWADT 318
Blair v Curran [1939] HCA 23; (1939) 62 CLR 464
Trad v Jones (No 3) (EOD) [2013] NSWADTAP 13
Chand v Railcorp of NSW (No.2) [2011] NSWCA 80
Trad v Jones (No 4) [2012] NSWADT 265
Trad v Jones (No 3) (EOD) [2012] NSWADTAP 33
AT v Commissioner of Police, NSW [2010] NSWCA 131
Tu v University of Sydney (No 2) [2002] NSWADTAP 25
De Luca & Anor v Scuccimarra & Anor (No 2) [2007] NSWADT 245
Denmeade v Kempsey Shire Council & Ors (No.3) [2004] NSWADT 54;
Lynch v Alan Hingston as trustee for the AP Family Trust trading as Grafton Sawmilling [2009] NSWADT 263;
Jenkins v YMCA of Great Lakes Inc. t/as Great Lakes Aquatic & Leisure Centre [2008] NSWADT 335 at [28];
Hughes v Narrabri Bowling Motel Limited (No 2) [2012] NSWADT 260.
Calderbank v Calderbank [1975] 3 ALL ER 333
Multicon Engineering Pty Ltd v Federal Airports Corp (1996) 138 ALR 425
Assaf v Skalkos [2000] NSWSC 935
Dr Martens Australia Pty Ltd v Figgins Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2) [2000] FCA 602
Sunol v Collier (EOD) [2006] NSWADTAP 51
Burns v Radio 2UE Sydney Pty Ltd & Ors (No2) [2005] NSWADT 24
Charteris v General Manager, Leichhardt Municipal Council [2001] NSWADTAP 12
Khan v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services [2002] NSWADT 209Texts Cited: Butterworths, Concise Australian Legal Dictionary, 2nd edition, Butterworths, 1998 Category: Costs Parties: Keyser Trad (Applicant)
Alan Jones (Respondent)
Harbour Radio Pty Ltd (Respondent)Representation: Counsel
K Nomchong SC (Applicant)
K Eastman SC (Respondents)
Turner Freeman (Applicant)
Baker & McKenzie (Respondents)
File Number(s): 071036
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
In December 2009, the Tribunal found that broadcaster Alan Jones and the licensee of radio station 2 GB, Harbour Radio Pty Limited, had breached the racial vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977. Comments made by Mr Jones on 28 April 2005 were found to have vilified Lebanese Muslims on the ground of their race (the Schedule A broadcast). Other comments made on 26, 27 and 28 April 2005 (the Schedule B broadcasts), were found not to constitute…
Continue reading Trad v Jones (No 5)
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Trad v Jones (No 5) [2013] NSWADT 127
- Case
- [2013] NSWADT 127
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Keyser Trad filed a complaint against Alan Jones and the radio station 2 GB regarding alleged racial vilification. The complaint was partially substantiated and partially dismissed by the Australian Human Rights Commission. Both parties subsequently applied for costs, with Trad arguing for an award based on the respondents' unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement, and Jones asserting that res judicata should preclude costs being awarded to Trad. The dispute centered on the fairness of awarding costs and the relative strengths of each party's claims.
The court was tasked with determining whether the doctrine of res judicata applied, preventing an award of costs to Trad, and if it was fair to award costs considering the unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement. The court also had to assess the relative strengths of the claims presented by both parties. The reasoning of the court involved a detailed examination of the principles governing costs in Australian litigation, the doctrine of res judicata, and the circumstances surrounding the offer of settlement.
The court concluded that it was fair to award costs to Trad, primarily due to the respondents' unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement. The court found that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply in a manner that would preclude an award of costs to Trad. The relative strengths of the claims were also considered, with the court finding that Trad's claims had sufficient merit to warrant an award of costs. The court ordered the respondents to pay Trad's costs from 6 June 2007 as agreed or assessed.
The court was tasked with determining whether the doctrine of res judicata applied, preventing an award of costs to Trad, and if it was fair to award costs considering the unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement. The court also had to assess the relative strengths of the claims presented by both parties. The reasoning of the court involved a detailed examination of the principles governing costs in Australian litigation, the doctrine of res judicata, and the circumstances surrounding the offer of settlement.
The court concluded that it was fair to award costs to Trad, primarily due to the respondents' unreasonable refusal to accept an offer of settlement. The court found that the doctrine of res judicata did not apply in a manner that would preclude an award of costs to Trad. The relative strengths of the claims were also considered, with the court finding that Trad's claims had sufficient merit to warrant an award of costs. The court ordered the respondents to pay Trad's costs from 6 June 2007 as agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
The respondents are to pay the applicant's costs from 6 June 2007 as agreed or assessed.
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.