Burns v Folau [2020] NSWCATAD 287

Burns v Folau [2020] NSWCATAD 287

Leave was refused because, although the Complaint was arguable and not utterly hopeless, one reason Mr Burns made it was for the collateral purpose of securing a monetary settlement to pay unrelated legal costs, and his repeated conduct during the Board investigation amounted to abuse, harassment, threats to the Board and President, and breach of confidentiality. The evidence did not establish that this conduct was caused by anxiety or another medical condition, and given its egregious nature it was not in the interests of justice to permit the Complaint to proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) for a Declined Homosexual Vilification Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint Under S 92 of the Act
Outcome
Leave refused.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Vilification' 'ncat Leave to Proceed' 'vexatious Complaint' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Purpose' 'religious Instruction Exception']
['human Rights' 'anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['homosexual Vilification' 'ncat Leave to Proceed' 'vexatious Complaint' 'abuse of Process' 'collateral Purpose' 'religious Instruction Exception']

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

Application for Leave Under S 96(1) of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) for a Declined Homosexual Vilification Complaint to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint Under S 92 of the Act

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was fair and just to grant leave under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the Complaint to proceed.' 'Whether the Complaint was lacking in substance or not reasonably arguable.' "Whether Mr Burns' conduct during the Board's investigation rendered the Complaint vexatious and/or amounted to an abuse of process." "Whether Mr Burns' conduct was the result of a medical condition."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because, although the Complaint was arguable and not utterly hopeless, one reason Mr Burns made it was for the collateral purpose of securing a monetary settlement to pay unrelated legal costs, and his repeated conduct during the Board investigation amounted to abuse, harassment, threats to the Board and President, and breach of confidentiality. The evidence did not establish that this conduct was caused by anxiety or another medical condition, and given its egregious nature it was not in the interests of justice to permit the Complaint to proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused under s 96(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) for the Complaint against Israel Folau to proceed.']