Southey v The Australian Press Council [2020] NSWCATAD 177

Southey v The Australian Press Council [2020] NSWCATAD 177

The complaint handling process of the Australian Press Council constitutes 'services' provided to the applicant for purposes of ss 4 and 38M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, as the applicant activated and participated in that process and it was made available to her as part of the relevant class. The application...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Claire Southey; Respondent: The Australian Press Council
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Administrative and Equal Opportunity / Preliminary Determination of Whether Respondent Provided 'services', and Application for Anonymisation Order
Outcome
Preliminary determination; application for anonymisation order refused
Legal Topics
Transgender Discrimination, Definition of 'services' Under Anti Discrimination Act, Anonymisation/suppression Orders, Complaint Handling Procedures
Anti Discrimination Administrative Law Human Rights Transgender Discrimination Definition of 'services' Under Anti Discrimination Act Anonymisation/suppression Orders Complaint Handling Procedures

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Claire Southey

Applicant

The Australian Press Council

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative and Equal Opportunity / Preliminary Determination of Whether Respondent Provided 'services', and Application for Anonymisation Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did The Australian Press Council provide 'services' to the applicant within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?
  2. 2 Should an anonymisation order prohibiting disclosure of the applicant's name be granted under Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013?

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint handling process of the Australian Press Council constitutes 'services' provided to the applicant for purposes of ss 4 and 38M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, as the applicant activated and participated in that process and it was made available to her as part of the relevant class. The application for an anonymisation order failed due to the presumption of open justice, insufficient grounds, and the public nature of the applicant's identity and transgender status.

Court Disposition

Preliminary determination; application for anonymisation order refused

Orders

  • The Respondent provided 'services' to the applicant for the purposes of ss 4 and 38M of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 in relation to her complaint made to the applicant on 17 January 2017.
  • The application for an order under s 64 of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 prohibiting the disclosure of the applicant's name is refused.