Sunol v Burns [2015] NSWCATAP 207
The restraining order made by the Tribunal was properly within its statutory powers, was sufficiently clear for an ordinary reasonable reader to understand, and covered statements to the same or similar effect regardless of the website's control, thus lawfully restraining repetition of unlawful conduct found under s 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
- Parties
- Appellant: John Christopher Sunol; Respondent: Gary Burns
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 24 September 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Homosexual Vilification, Public Act, Incitement, Restraining Order, Remedies
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
John Christopher Sunol
Appellant
Gary Burns
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Civil and Administrative Tribunal Appeal Panel Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the restraining order made under s 108(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) was valid and enforceable
- 2 Whether the Tribunal properly applied the test of 'Public Act' within the meaning of s 49ZS of the Act
- 3 Whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction or exercised it improperly in restraining conduct on websites not controlled by the appellant
Ratio Decidendi
The restraining order made by the Tribunal was properly within its statutory powers, was sufficiently clear for an ordinary reasonable reader to understand, and covered statements to the same or similar effect regardless of the website's control, thus lawfully restraining repetition of unlawful conduct found under s 49ZT of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW).
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appeal is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment