Herbert v Five Dock Dockers RSL Rugby League Football Club [2012] NSWADT 110

Herbert v Five Dock Dockers RSL Rugby League Football Club [2012] NSWADT 110

Leave was refused because neither respondent was a registered club, so the complaints under ss 20A and 49ZYP were misconceived and without merit, and both respondents were voluntary bodies within s 57 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, so complaints about services provided to members fell within the statutory exception. It was therefore fair and just to refuse leave because the complaints were likely to be dismissed if allowed to proceed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave for Race and Age Discrimination Complaints to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaints as Lacking in Substance
Outcome
Leave for the applicants' complaint of race discrimination to proceed is refused. Leave for the applicants' complaint of age discrimination to proceed is refused.
Legal Topics
['race Discrimination' 'age Discrimination' 'registered Clubs' 'voluntary Bodies Exemption' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'administrative Law'] ['race Discrimination' 'age Discrimination' 'registered Clubs' 'voluntary Bodies Exemption' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'leave to Proceed']

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 for Race and Age Discrimination Complaints to Proceed / Leave Application After the President of the Anti Discrimination Board Declined the Complaints as Lacking in Substance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted for the applicants' complaints of race and age discrimination to proceed." 'Whether either respondent was a registered club for the purposes of ss 20A and 49ZYP of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether either respondent was a voluntary body within the meaning of s 57 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether the complaints concerning goods and services could proceed despite the voluntary bodies exemption.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was refused because neither respondent was a registered club, so the complaints under ss 20A and 49ZYP were misconceived and without merit, and both respondents were voluntary bodies within s 57 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, so complaints about services provided to members fell within the statutory exception. It was therefore fair and just to refuse leave because the complaints were likely to be dismissed if allowed to proceed.

Court Disposition

Leave for the applicants' complaint of race discrimination to proceed is refused. Leave for the applicants' complaint of age discrimination to proceed is refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave for the complaint of race discrimination to proceed is refused.' 'Leave for the complaint of age discrimination to proceed is refused.']