Trapman v Evatt [2015] NSWCATAD 219

Civil and Administrative Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Trapman v Evatt [2015] NSWCATAD 219 Hearing dates: 25 March 2015, 21 May 2015 Date of orders: 22 October 2015 Decision date: 22 October 2015 Jurisdiction: Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division Before: R Perrignon, Senior Member J Newman, Member N Hiffernan, Member Decision: Application dismissed Catchwords: Discrimination on grounds of race – allegation of direct discrimination in the provision of goods and services – whether respondent barrister referred to the applicant as 'you abo's' in private conference Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 Category: Principal judgment Parties: William James Trapman (Applicant) Clive Evatt (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: W Trapman (Applicant in person) C Evatt (Respondent)

Solicitors: File Number(s): 1410402

Reasons for decision 1. The applicant Mr Trapman is an Aboriginal man from Brewarrina in New South Wales. On 17 February 2014, he complained to the Anti-Discrimination Board that Mr Clive Evatt, barrister-at-law, had discriminated against him on the grounds of his race in the provision of legal services. He complained that in a conference with Mr Evatt and another barrister, Ms Hawkins, concerning a defamation case in which Mr Trapman was the Defendant, Mr Evatt had said to him, "I don't know what to do with you abo's." 2. Mr Trapman says, and the Tribunal accepts, that the term 'Abo' was and is deeply offensive to him as an Aboriginal person. He says that in using the term to describe him, Mr Evatt treated him less favourably than he treated or would treat other persons not of Aboriginal race in the same or similar circumstances, in the terms on which Mr Evatt provided legal services. It is therefore a claim of direct discrimination. 3. No complaint of racial vilification was referred to the Tribunal by the Anti-Discrimination Board. Section 20C of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 prohibits racial vilification by a public act, as defined. Mr Trapman alleges that the words were in question uttered in a private conference. 4. Mr Evatt denies that he said the words alleged or any similar words. He says that, even if he had said them, they could not amount to discrimination.