Wilde v Day [2002] NSWADT 114

Wilde v Day [2002] NSWADT 114

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaints as the President's referral encompassed valid separate complaints, but both complaints are dismissed as misconceived and lacking in substance since the alleged acts fall within absolute privilege under section 38S(2)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act, thus cannot constitute transgender vilification.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Complaint Dismissal Application / Preliminary Matter; Ex Tempore Decision
Outcome
complaints dismissed; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
['transgender Vilification' 'jurisdiction' 'absolute Privilege' 'complaint Procedure' 'costs']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity Law'] ['transgender Vilification' 'jurisdiction' 'absolute Privilege' 'complaint Procedure' 'costs']

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

Complaint Dismissal Application / Preliminary Matter; Ex Tempore Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the complaints?' 'Are the complaints misconceived or lacking in substance?' 'Can the defence of absolute privilege apply to the complaints?']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the complaints as the President's referral encompassed valid separate complaints, but both complaints are dismissed as misconceived and lacking in substance since the alleged acts fall within absolute privilege under section 38S(2)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act, thus cannot constitute transgender vilification.

Court Disposition

complaints dismissed; no order as to costs

Orders

  • ['The complaints of transgender vilification are dismissed.' 'No order as to costs.']