Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Aydemir v Redegalli [2011] NSWADT 198 Hearing dates: 5 August 2011 Decision date: 18 August 2011 Jurisdiction: Equal Opportunity Division Before: Magistrate N Hennessy, Deputy President Decision: 1. The respondent's application for costs is refused. 2. The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant $500 being the costs of responding to the respondent's application for an apology. Catchwords: COST - complaint withdrawn and dismissed after first case conference - whether costs incurred at Anti-Discrimination Board recoverable - whether complaint lacked merit - jurisdiction to order applicant to apologise to respondent - part of application has no tenable basis in law Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Cases Cited: Haas v Hosking (No 2) [2010] NSWADT 203 AT v Commissioner of Police [2010] NSWCA 131 Category: Costs Parties: Cigden Aydemir (Applicant) Sergio Redegalli (Respondent) Representation: Counsel Paul Batley (Applicant) D Rofe QC (Respondent) Legal Aid NSW (Applicant) File Number(s): 111007

REasons for decision

Introduction 1EQUAL OPPORTUNITY DIVISION (N HENNESSY, LCM (DEPUTY PRESIDENT)): Ms Aydemir complained to the President of the Anti-Discrimination Board (ADB) that a large mural painted on an external wall of a building owned by Mr Redegalli breached the racial vilification provisions of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 ( AD Act ). The mural depicted a red ring with a red diagonal line through the middle of the ring. Inside the ring was an outline of a woman wearing a burqa and niqab. The caption on the top part of the ring said, "SAY NO TO BURQAS". 2The President of the ADB referred the complaint to the Tribunal. At the first case conference, Ms Aydemir said that she was applying for Legal Aid NSW to represent her. The Tribunal set down a timetable and scheduled a second case conference. Ms Aydemir was granted legal aid. Prior to her filing any material, her lawyer telephoned and then wrote to Mr Redegalli's lawyer offering to discontinue the proceedings on the basis that there be no order as to costs. Mr Redegalli did not accept that offer. Ms Aydemir withdrew the proceedings and they were dismissed. Mr Redegalli now applies for costs and for a letter of apology. Ms Aydemir opposes those applications and applies for her costs in relation to Mr Redegalli's costs and apology applications. This application has been determined 'on the papers': Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 ( ADT Act ), s 76. 3I note that both parties appear to be under a misapprehension that leave is necessary for parties to be represented by a lawyer at hearings in the Equal Opportunity Division. No such leave is required: ADT Act , s 71(1)(b).