May-Welby -V- Capital Q Pty Ltd And Hamilton-Wolf [1997] NSWEOT

May-Welby -V- Capital Q Pty Ltd And Hamilton-Wolf [1997] NSWEOT

The letter, taken in context, did not incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule of the complainant as required by s38S of the Act, and the statements were not made on the ground of the complainant being a transgender person but rather due to her role in a community dispute. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed as misconceived.

Parties
Complainant: Norrie May-Welby; First Respondent: Capital Q Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Tori Hamilton-Wolf
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 1997
Procedural Posture
Complaint / Application for Dismissal Under S111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Outcome
complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
Transgender Vilification, Application of Statutory Definition, Exceptions to Vilification Provisions
Anti Discrimination Law Transgender Vilification Application of Statutory Definition Exceptions to Vilification Provisions

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Norrie May-Welby

Complainant

Capital Q Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Tori Hamilton-Wolf

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint / Application for Dismissal Under S111 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the complainant meet the statutory definition of a transgender person under s38A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977?
  2. 2 Does the published letter constitute transgender vilification as defined by s38S of the Act?
  3. 3 Was the alleged act done on the ground that the complainant was a transgender person?

Ratio Decidendi

The letter, taken in context, did not incite hatred, serious contempt, or severe ridicule of the complainant as required by s38S of the Act, and the statements were not made on the ground of the complainant being a transgender person but rather due to her role in a community dispute. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed as misconceived.

Court Disposition

complaint dismissed

Orders

  • The complaint is dismissed under s111 as being misconceived.
  • No findings are made on the frivolousness or vexatiousness of the complaint.