Barry v Futter [2011] NSWADT 205

Barry v Futter [2011] NSWADT 205

The Tribunal found the alleged conduct was a private conversation between two employees, not a ‘public act’ within the meaning of s 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); thus, the alleged vilification provision was not engaged and the complaint must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Malcolm Jay Barry; Respondent: Heidi Futter
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Complaint / Final Decision After Hearing
Outcome
Complaint dismissed in whole
Legal Topics
Transgender Vilification, Discrimination, Public Act Interpretation
Anti Discrimination Law Equal Opportunity Law Transgender Vilification Discrimination Public Act Interpretation

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malcolm Jay Barry

Applicant

Heidi Futter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity Complaint / Final Decision After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent engaged in unlawful transgender vilification under s 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) by a public act.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found the alleged conduct was a private conversation between two employees, not a ‘public act’ within the meaning of s 38S of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW); thus, the alleged vilification provision was not engaged and the complaint must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed in whole

Orders

  • The complaint be dismissed in whole.