Ekermawi v Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 351

Ekermawi v Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd [2008] NSWADT 351

Leave was refused because the complaint had no prospect of success: the impugned passages did not reach the statutory standard of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule, and in any event the article addressed Islam and Muslims as matters of religion rather than race within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave, Racial Vilification Complaint / Application for Leave Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, Section 96(1), After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave is refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Proceed' 'public Act' 'incitement to Hatred, Serious Contempt or Severe Ridicule' 'race and Religion' 'public Interest Exception']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'racial Vilification'] ['leave to Proceed' 'public Act' 'incitement to Hatred, Serious Contempt or Severe Ridicule' 'race and Religion' 'public Interest 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, Racial Vilification Complaint / Application for Leave Under Anti Discrimination Act 1977, Section 96(1), After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaint as Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to proceed with a racial vilification complaint after the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as lacking in substance.' 'Whether publication of the article incited hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of a person or group of persons.' 'Whether any alleged incitement was on the ground of race within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether the respondent could rely on the exception in section 20C(2)(c) for a public act done reasonably and in good faith for purposes in the public interest.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because the complaint had no prospect of success: the impugned passages did not reach the statutory standard of inciting hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule, and in any event the article addressed Islam and Muslims as matters of religion rather than race within the meaning of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.

Court Disposition

Leave is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused.']