Trad v Jones & Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 72

Trad v Jones & Harbour Radio Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCATAD 72

The Applicant was not effectively on notice that there was any dispute about the scope of the remittal beyond the relevance of draft Question 4, because the Respondents' footnote related only to that question and notice the day before the hearing was insufficient. The Court of Appeal's orders and reasons showed that, although the whole complaint concerning the Schedule A broadcast was remitted, the purpose was to reconsider the discrete matters in which legal error had been identified. The scope of the remittal was therefore accurately summarised by the five draft questions at [16] and did not extend to re-determination of the fair report exception under s 20C(2)(a) or to a different...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Applications / Preliminary Determination on Scope of Remittal and Identification of Evidence After Court of Appeal Remittal
Outcome
The matter was adjourned and directions were made. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not effectively on notice of a broader dispute about the scope of remittal and that the scope of the remittal was limited to the five draft questions identified at [16].
Legal Topics
['racial Vilification' 'scope of Remittal' 'procedural Fairness' 'public Act' 'exceptions to Unlawful Racial Vilification' 'identification of Evidence']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['racial Vilification' 'scope of Remittal' 'procedural Fairness' 'public Act' 'exceptions to Unlawful Racial Vilification' 'identification of Evidence']

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

Interlocutory Applications / Preliminary Determination on Scope of Remittal and Identification of Evidence After Court of Appeal Remittal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant was on notice that the scope of the remittal and the identification of the evidence were in issue.' 'What the scope of the Court of Appeal remittal was.' 'Whether the scope of the remittal extended beyond the five draft questions identified by the Respondents.' 'Whether the Tribunal should make directions for the parties to identify the evidence on which they wished to rely.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant was not effectively on notice that there was any dispute about the scope of the remittal beyond the relevance of draft Question 4, because the Respondents' footnote related only to that question and notice the day before the hearing was insufficient. The Court of Appeal's orders and reasons showed that, although the whole complaint concerning the Schedule A broadcast was remitted, the purpose was to reconsider the discrete matters in which legal error had been identified. The scope of the remittal was therefore accurately summarised by the five draft questions at [16] and did not extend to re-determination of the fair report exception under s 20C(2)(a) or to a different...

Court Disposition

The matter was adjourned and directions were made. The Tribunal found that the Applicant was not effectively on notice of a broader dispute about the scope of remittal and that the scope of the remittal was limited to the five draft questions identified at [16].

Orders

  • ['The matter is adjourned.' 'The matter is listed for hearing on 11 August 2014 at 10 am.' 'By 18 June 2014, each party is to file and serve any application for costs in relation to these proceedings.' 'By 2 July 2014, each party is to file and serve any submissions in reply to any application for costs.' 'By 15...