Riley v State of New South Wales (Department of Education) [2019] NSWCATAD 223

Riley v State of New South Wales (Department of Education) [2019] NSWCATAD 223

The application was dismissed because the applicants did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondents contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The Tribunal held that (1) the alleged acts were not public acts for the purposes of racial vilification (s 20C); (2) there was no less favourable treatment of Nathan Riley on the ground of his race as a contract worker under s 10; (3) the requirements for victimisation under s 50 were not met as the applicants did not make complaints under or by reference to the Act; and (4) as no unlawful act was found, the aiding and abetting claim against Ms Head under s 52 also failed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Administrative and Anti Discrimination Complaint / Final Merits Hearing and Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['racial Discrimination' 'racial Vilification' 'victimisation' 'contract Workers' 'employment Discrimination']
['anti Discrimination'] ['racial Discrimination' 'racial Vilification' 'victimisation' 'contract Workers' 'employment Discrimination']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Administrative and Anti Discrimination Complaint / Final Merits Hearing and Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents racially discriminated against Nathan Riley as a contract worker contrary to Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 10' 'Whether the respondents engaged in racial vilification contrary to Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 20C' 'Whether the respondents victimised the applicants contrary to Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s 50' 'Whether the second respondent aided or abetted discrimination under s 52 of the Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the applicants did not establish on the balance of probabilities that the respondents contravened the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW). The Tribunal held that (1) the alleged acts were not public acts for the purposes of racial vilification (s 20C); (2) there was no less favourable treatment of Nathan Riley on the ground of his race as a contract worker under s 10; (3) the requirements for victimisation under s 50 were not met as the applicants did not make complaints under or by reference to the Act; and (4) as no unlawful act was found, the aiding and abetting claim against Ms Head under s 52 also failed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application is dismissed." 'Any party may make an application for costs by providing evidence and submissions to the Tribunal and other parties by 19 November 2019.' 'Any party against whom a costs application is made must provide responsive submissions and evidence by 3 December 2019.' 'The...