Burns v Smith [2019] NSWCATAD 56

Burns v Smith [2019] NSWCATAD 56

The respondent's Facebook comment was a 'public act' objectively capable of inciting hatred and serious contempt for the applicant on the ground of his homosexuality, not protected by any statutory exception; thus, unlawful vilification under s49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is substantiated.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 April 2019
Procedural Posture
Complaint (administrative/eq Division) / Final Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Complaint substantiated; unlawful vilification found.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Vilification' "meaning of 'public Act'" 'capacity to Incite Hatred or Contempt' 'remedies for Vilification']
['human Rights Law' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['homosexual Vilification' "meaning of 'public Act'" 'capacity to Incite Hatred or Contempt' 'remedies for Vilification']

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

Complaint (administrative/eq Division) / Final Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's Facebook post constitutes unlawful homosexual vilification under s49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)" "Whether the comments incited hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule on the ground of the applicant's homosexuality" 'Whether any statutory exceptions under s49ZT(2)(c) apply']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent's Facebook comment was a 'public act' objectively capable of inciting hatred and serious contempt for the applicant on the ground of his homosexuality, not protected by any statutory exception; thus, unlawful vilification under s49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) is substantiated.

Court Disposition

Complaint substantiated; unlawful vilification found.

Orders

  • ['The complaint alleging unlawful vilification is substantiated.' 'The Respondent is ordered to pay the sum of $10,000 to the Applicant within 28 days of the date of this decision.']