Wilson v Stevens

Case [2024] QCAT 471


QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL


CITATION:

Wilson v Stevens [2024] QCAT 471

PARTIES:

EHIAH WILSON

(applicant)

v

NICOLA STEVENS

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

ADL109-22

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2024

HEARING DATE

On the papers

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Member Goodman

ORDERS:

1.     Nicola Stevens must pay Ehiah Wilson the sum of $10,500 by 4:00pm on 30 September 2024.

2.     Nicola Stevens must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, Mr Wilson on the ground of his race or sexuality.

CATCHWORDS:

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – VILIFICATION – where homophobic and racist comments and threats directed towards a neighbour

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), s 4A,

s 118, s 119, s 209, s 124A

Brosnahan v Ronoff [2011] QCAT 439;

Wilson & McCollum v Lawson & Anor [2008] QADT 27

Zhai v Kullack [2024] QCAT 56

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld)

REASONS FOR DECISION

BACKGROUND

  1. On 15 November 2022, the Tribunal received a referral of this matter pursuant to s 166 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (‘ADA’).

  2. Mr Wilson and Ms Stevens are neighbours in a set of 12 public housing units. The parties have been in conflict for over five years. Mr Wilson alleges that he has been subjected to harassment and vilification which has escalated since Ms Stevens became aware that he was in a same sex relationship in early 2022.

  3. Ms Stevens resides with her son and her dog in a unit above Mr Wilson’s unit. Her boyfriend visits regularly.

  4. Mr Wilson is a bisexual Māori man who has impaired cognitive function due to a stroke and leukodystrophy. He is diagnosed with a major depressive disorder arising out of his brain injuries. He resides with his dog in the unit complex. His nephew has provided an affidavit referring to witnessing an incident while standing in “our kitchen” and “our porch”. Mr Wilson does not mention in his material that he resides with his nephew, and it is not clear to me whether his nephew resides with Mr Wilson permanently.   

  5. Mr Wilson claims he has been sexually harassed[1] and vilified on the basis of his race and sexuality (bisexuality).[2] Mr Wilson claims that Ms Stevens has used homophobic profanities directed towards him, which have been heard by Ms Stevens’ son, boyfriend, and other neighbours.

    [1]ADA, s 118.

    [2]ADA, s 124A.

  6. Mr Wilson says that Ms Stevens has called him, among other things, ‘faggot, poofter, gaybo’, and that Ms Stevens’ behaviour has had ‘a serious effect’ on his mental health. Mr Wilson states:

    I have been in a serious state of depression. It is hard enough being gay…but having someone ridicule you about it in public is very hard to deal with. Also I live in a unit which is one of twelve in our living complex. So I feel unsafe now.

  7. Mr…

Continue reading Wilson v Stevens

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wilson v Stevens [2024] QCAT 471
Case
[2024] QCAT 471
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Wilson v Stevens, Ehiah Wilson, the plaintiff, sought damages from Nicola Stevens, the defendant, for a series of defamatory statements made against him. The dispute centred around comments and threats made by Stevens towards Wilson that were both homophobic and racist in nature. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The plaintiff argued that the comments were not only defamatory but also constituted a form of vilification under anti-discrimination laws.

The court was required to determine whether the comments made by Stevens towards Wilson constituted vilification under the Discrimination Act 1991. Additionally, the court had to assess whether the comments warranted a pecuniary damages award and if an injunction was appropriate to prevent future vilification. The central issue was whether the comments were made with the intention to incite hatred, contempt, or ridicule towards Wilson based on his race and sexuality.

The court found that Stevens' comments were indeed vilifying as they targeted Wilson's race and sexuality and were intended to incite hatred and contempt. The court emphasised the importance of protecting individuals from such harmful conduct, particularly in a community setting. It held that the comments were not just defamatory but also constituted a breach of the anti-discrimination laws. As a result, the court awarded Wilson $10,500 in damages and issued an injunction prohibiting Stevens from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The injunction specifically mandated that Stevens must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of Mr Wilson on the ground of his race or sexuality.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Nicola Stevens must pay Ehiah Wilson the sum of $10,500 by 4:00pm on 30 September 2024.

2. Nicola Stevens must not, by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of, Mr Wilson on the ground of his race or sexuality.

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.