Burns v Gaynor [2015] NSWCATAD 211

Burns v Gaynor [2015] NSWCATAD 211

On the unchallenged evidence, all acts by Mr Gaynor were performed in Queensland, not NSW; the public act for the purposes of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 did not occur in NSW; it was Mr Burns' own later act that caused the alleged vilifying material to be downloaded in NSW; therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the proceedings were misconceived.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 October 2015
Procedural Posture
Summary Application / Complaint Dismissal Application / Decision After Reconsideration of Summary Dismissal Proceedings
Outcome
Proceedings dismissed as misconceived.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Vilification' 'jurisdiction' 'public Act Requirements' 'internet Publication' 'abuse of Process']
['anti Discrimination' 'administrative Law' 'equal Opportunity'] ['homosexual Vilification' 'jurisdiction' 'public Act Requirements' 'internet Publication' 'abuse of Process']

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

Summary Application / Complaint Dismissal Application / Decision After Reconsideration of Summary Dismissal Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Anti Discrimination Act 1977 for acts allegedly committed in Queensland but accessible in NSW' "Whether posting material online outside NSW constitutes a 'public act' in NSW under s49ZT of the Act" 'Whether multiplicity of complaints or motives of the complainant made the proceedings vexatious or an abuse of process']

Ratio Decidendi

On the unchallenged evidence, all acts by Mr Gaynor were performed in Queensland, not NSW; the public act for the purposes of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 did not occur in NSW; it was Mr Burns' own later act that caused the alleged vilifying material to be downloaded in NSW; therefore, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the proceedings were misconceived.

Court Disposition

Proceedings dismissed as misconceived.

Orders

  • ['Proceedings before the Tribunal are dismissed as misconceived.' 'No order as to costs.']