LD -v- Voltime Pty Limited (trading as Cronulla Hotel) [2001] NSWADT 5

LD -v- Voltime Pty Limited (trading as Cronulla Hotel) [2001] NSWADT 5

Although the complainant was treated differently from Mr Finnane after the scuffle, the evidence did not establish that the respondent or its staff presumed the complainant was homosexual or that the ejection and barring were on the ground of presumed homosexuality. The Tribunal found that the ejection and barring were consequences of the altercation at the hotel, not discrimination. The complaint was therefore not substantiated. Costs were justified because the matter involved an unusual number of preliminary references caused by the complainant's failure to specify his complaint, unnecessarily increasing the respondent's costs, but indemnity costs would be too severe given the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Homosexual Discrimination Goods and Services Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter Inquiry After Reference by the Anti Discrimination Board
Outcome
Complaint dismissed; respondent awarded costs on a party and party basis with exclusions.
Legal Topics
['homosexual Discrimination' 'presumed Homosexuality' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'ejection and Barring From Hotel Premises' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'equal Opportunity' 'costs'] ['homosexual Discrimination' 'presumed Homosexuality' 'provision of Goods and Services' 'ejection and Barring From Hotel Premises' 'costs in Tribunal Proceedings']

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

Homosexual Discrimination Goods and Services Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Principal Matter Inquiry After Reference by the Anti Discrimination Board

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent discriminated against the complainant on the ground of homosexuality or presumed homosexuality by ejecting him from the Cronulla Hotel and barring him from attending the hotel.' 'Whether any discrimination, if established, was unlawful in the provision of goods and services under s.49ZP of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.' 'Whether circumstances justified an order for costs against the complainant under s.114(2) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the complainant was treated differently from Mr Finnane after the scuffle, the evidence did not establish that the respondent or its staff presumed the complainant was homosexual or that the ejection and barring were on the ground of presumed homosexuality. The Tribunal found that the ejection and barring were consequences of the altercation at the hotel, not discrimination. The complaint was therefore not substantiated. Costs were justified because the matter involved an unusual number of preliminary references caused by the complainant's failure to specify his complaint, unnecessarily increasing the respondent's costs, but indemnity costs would be too severe given the...

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed; respondent awarded costs on a party and party basis with exclusions.

Orders

  • ['Complaint is dismissed.' 'Costs of the respondent assessed on a party and party basis be paid by the complainant.' 'The amount of costs, if not agreed within twenty one days from the date on which an assessment of the costs is given to the complainant, is to be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the...