Commissioner of Police v the Eedward John Russell & Ors

(2002) 55 NSWLR 232; [2002] NSWCA 272

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Anti-Discrimination Law
2. › Unlawful discrimination
3. › Liability of employer for acts of employees
4. › Police officers
5. › Whether police officer is 'employee' of Commissioner of Police
6. › Whether Commissioner liable under s 53
7. › Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), ss 4B, 53
8. › Police Service Act 1990 (NSW)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Administrative Decisions Tribunal
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine vicarious liability under Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983
5. › Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 (NSW), s 118
1. Tort
2. › Definition of tort
3. › Whether statutory cause of action for unlawful discrimination constitutes a tort
4. › Whether proceedings by complaint before tribunal are proceedings in tort
5. › Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983 (NSW), ss 7, 8
6. › Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), s 113
1. Statutes
2. › Interpretation
3. › Meaning of 'employee'
4. › Whether word used in technical legal sense or broader ordinary sense
5. › Beneficial legislation
6. › Liberal interpretation
7. › Interpretation Act 1987 (NSW), s 33

Quick Take

Police officers are 'employees' of the Commissioner of Police for the purposes of s 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), making the Commissioner liable for discriminatory acts of police officers. The Administrative Decisions Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine vicarious liability under the Law Reform (Vicarious Liability) Act 1983; liability for discrimination by police officers must be pursued through s 53 of the Anti-Discrimination Act, not through the Vicarious Liability Act. The characterisation of anti-discrimination proceedings as a 'tort' for purposes of the Vicarious Liability Act was doubted but not finally determined.