NSW Caselaw
CITATION: Z v University of A & Ors (No 7) [2004] NSWADT 81 DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division APPLICANT Z FIRST RESPONDENT PARTIES: University of A SECOND RESPONDENT Dr D THIRD RESPONDENT Ms B FILE NUMBER: 001001 HEARING DATES: 26/08/2002-30/08/2002, 20/03/2003-21/03/2003, 24/03/2003-26/03/2003, 5/06/2003-6/06/2003 SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 12/05/2003 DATE OF DECISION: 04/29/2004
BEFORE: Goode P - Judicial Member; Clayton S - Non Judicial Member; McDonald O - Non Judicial Member APPLICATION: Disability Discrimination - Education - HIV/AIDS - Vilification - Homosexual - Vilification - Homosexual Discrimination - Education - Victimisation - Vilification - HIV/AIDS - Vilification - Homosexual MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Z v University of A (No. 3) [2001] NSWADT 182 Z v University of A (No. 4) [2002] NSWADT 14 Z v University of A, Dr D and B (No. 6) [2003] NSWADT 260 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service (EOD) [2003] NSWADTAP 3 Commissioner of Corrective Services v Aldridge [2000] NSWADTAP 5 Adams v University of Western Sydney [2001] NSWADTAP 19 Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Service [2002] NSWADT 135 Giorgionne v The Queen (1995) 156 CLR 473 Sutton v Ultimate Manufacturing &Ors (1997) EOC 92-891 R v D and E Marinkovic [1996] EOC 92-841 Anderson v Thompson [2001] NSWADT 11 CASES CITED: Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32 Kimble v Souris [2003] NSWADT 49 Western Aboriginal Legal Service Ltd v Jones & Anor [2002] NSWADT 102 Veloskey & Anor v Karagiannikis & Ors [2002] NSWADTAP 18 John Fairfax Publications Pty Ltd v Kazak (EOD) [2002] NSWADTAP 35 Harou-Soudon v TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd [1994] EOC 92-604 Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2002] NSWADT 77 O'Callaghan v Loder [1984] EOC 92- 023 Waterhouse v Bell (1991) 25 NSWLR 99 Shellharbour Golf Club v Wheeler (1999) 46 NSWLR 253 Bogie v The University of Western Sydney (1990) EOC 92-313 Shaikh v Commissioner, NSW fire Brigade (1996) EOC 92-808 Borg v Commissioner, Department of Corrective Services & Anor [2002] NSWADT 42 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 APPLICANT REPRESENTATION: In person RESPONDENTS J Oakley, barrister ORDERS: 1. Complaint dismissed; 2. The Respondents' application for costs is listed for a case conference on a date to be fixed.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate