Sunol v Burns [2016] NSWCATAP 206

Sunol v Burns [2016] NSWCATAP 206

On the proper construction of s 49ZT, it was reasonably open for the Tribunal below to hold that the appellant's conduct fell within the prohibition of s 49ZT(1), and whether the facts as found fit the definition is a question of fact not law. There was no appeal as of right; the Tribunal did not err in law and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Parties
Appellant: John Christopher Sunol; Respondent: Garry Burns
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Panel of Civil and Administrative Tribunal of NSW
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Homosexual Vilification, Public Acts, Interpretation of S 49 ZT Anti Discrimination Act 1997 (nsw), Appeal Rights and Procedure
Anti Discrimination Homosexual Vilification Public Acts Interpretation of S 49 ZT Anti Discrimination Act 1997 (nsw) Appeal Rights and Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Christopher Sunol

Appellant

Garry Burns

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Panel of Civil and Administrative Tribunal of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's conduct constituted a public act inciting homosexual vilification under s 49ZT(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1997 (NSW)
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to the exemption under s 49ZT(2)(c) for acts done reasonably and in good faith for public interest or discussion
  3. 3 Whether an error of law was made by the Tribunal below

Ratio Decidendi

On the proper construction of s 49ZT, it was reasonably open for the Tribunal below to hold that the appellant's conduct fell within the prohibition of s 49ZT(1), and whether the facts as found fit the definition is a question of fact not law. There was no appeal as of right; the Tribunal did not err in law and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • Leave to appeal is refused.