Turner v State Transit Authority & anor [2004] NSWADT 89

Turner v State Transit Authority & anor [2004] NSWADT 89

Although Mr Bond's use of the term "cross-dresser" during the second incident constituted less favourable treatment on transgender grounds, the conduct did not fall within s 38M(b) because the complaint concerned the manner in which the bus service was provided, not the terms on which the service was provided. The vilification claim failed because the proven words were not capable, in context, of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule in the ordinary reasonable person. The victimisation claim failed because the required causal link between any detriment and the applicant's protected complaint activity was not established. The respondents' costs application failed because the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Anti Discrimination Complaint Concerning Transgender Discrimination in Goods and Services, Transgender Vilification, and Victimisation / Principal Matter Before the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal After Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Under S 94(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Outcome
The complaints of victimisation, unlawful discrimination and transgender vilification were dismissed, and the respondents' application for costs was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['transgender Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'transgender Vilification' 'victimisation' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity Law'] ['transgender Discrimination' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'transgender Vilification' 'victimisation' 'costs']

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

Anti Discrimination Complaint Concerning Transgender Discrimination in Goods and Services, Transgender Vilification, and Victimisation / Principal Matter Before the Equal Opportunity Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal After Referral by the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Under S 94(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents unlawfully discriminated against the applicant on transgender grounds in the provision of bus services under s 38M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether Mr Bond knew or thought the applicant was a transgender person and treated her less favourably because of that status.' "Whether Mr Bond's words and conduct constituted transgender vilification under s 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." "Whether Mr Bond's conduct constituted victimisation under s 50(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977." "Whether the respondents' application for costs should be granted under s 114 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Bond's use of the term "cross-dresser" during the second incident constituted less favourable treatment on transgender grounds, the conduct did not fall within s 38M(b) because the complaint concerned the manner in which the bus service was provided, not the terms on which the service was provided. The vilification claim failed because the proven words were not capable, in context, of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule in the ordinary reasonable person. The victimisation claim failed because the required causal link between any detriment and the applicant's protected complaint activity was not established. The respondents' costs application failed because the...

Court Disposition

The complaints of victimisation, unlawful discrimination and transgender vilification were dismissed, and the respondents' application for costs was dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The complaint of victimisation is dismissed.' 'The complaint of unlawful discrimination is dismissed.' 'The complaint of transgender vilification is dismissed.' "The Respondents' application for costs is dismissed."]