NSW Caselaw
CITATION: Tuck v Thompson and McGuire [2010] NSWADT 144
DIVISION: Equal Opportunity Division
Applicant: Roy Tuck PARTIES: Respondent: John Thompson (091135) Patrick McGuire (091136)
FILE NUMBER: 091135; 091136
HEARING DATES: 31 May 2010
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 31 May 2010
DATE OF DECISION: 9 June 2010
BEFORE: Furness G - Judicial Member; Hayes E - Non-Judicial Member; Lowe A - Non-Judicial Member
CATCHWORDS: Equal Opportunity- homosexual vilification- apology
LEGISLATION CITED : Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
Burns v Dye [2002] NSWADT 32 R v D and E Marinkovic [1996] EOC 92-841); Anderson v Thompson [2001] NSWADT 11 Z v University of A & Ors (No 7) [2004] NSWADT 81 Veloskey &Anor v Karagiannakis & Ors [2002] NSWADTAP 18 Kazak v John Fairfax Publications Ltd [2000] NSWADT 77 CASES CITED: O'Callaghan v Loder [1984] EOC 92-023 at 75,499; Waterhouse v Bell (1991) 25 NSWLR 99 at 106 JM and JN v QL and QM [2010] NSWADT 66 Qantas Airways v Gama [2008] FCAFC 69; Reyes-Gonzalez v Sydney Institute Of Technology [1998] NSWEOT 6/3/98; Ehl v Dept of Education and Training & NSW Teachers Federation [1999] NSWADT 102; Commissioner of Police, New South Wales Police Service v Orr [2001] NSWADTAP 16; Carter v Brown and Fisher [2010] NSWADT 109
Applicant Representative: C Mulvey, barrister REPRESENTATION: Respondent Representative: No appearance by either respondent
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