McGrath Hunters Hill racial discrimination complaint dismissed
A complaint to the Anti-Discrimination Board that a Lebanese home buyer had been discriminated against on the ground of her race by McGrath Real Estate Hunters Hill has been dismissed.
The property was sold to another purchaser prior to auction for $1.15 million, the same price as that offered by the complainant.
Helen Dahdal complained the estate agency did not submit her offers to purchase the property to the vendors in a timely manner due to her Lebanese background.
The real estate agency maintained that it had competently and correctly represented Dahdal's offers to purchase the property.
The ADB concluded it was the vendors who then made the decision to accept another purchaser's offer at the same price offer.
Dahdal applied to the tribunal for permission for her complaint of race discrimination to go ahead even though the president of the Anti-Discrimination Board declined the complaint as lacking substance.
The ADB president declined the complaint as “there is no evidence to support Ms Dahdal's allegations that the respondent's treatment of her (a) in the manner it in which it conducted itself and (b) in relation to the sale of the property to a buyer other than Ms Dahdal, was unlawful discrimination on the ground of race.”
She said the agent knew that she could afford to pay up to $1.4 million for the property, but the agent nevertheless allowed the vendor to accept an offer of $1.15 million.
The Administrative Decisions Tribunal found it was not in dispute that Dahdal had conveyed an offer of $1.15 million to the agent. The ultimate purchasers matched that offer and the vendors decided to sell to them.
Dahdal said she was prepared to offer $1.4 million at auction, she did not make any higher offer as the contracts were exchanged before she had the opportunity to do so.
The real estate agent says that all offers were communicated to the vendor.
There was a statement from the vendors saying that Dahdal's offer was conveyed to them prior to exchanging contracts but they had already decided to sell to another purchaser.
Dahdal connected the agents' alleged conduct with her race by referring to two incidents.
The tribunal was told the agent had asked her what her background was.
The agent was alleged to have described the other family who were also interested in purchasing the property as “a very nice family with four children.”
The second incident allegedly occurred when Dahdal was talking to another employee of the real estate agency.
She described the conversation: “I told him my brothers and other family members are buying and selling in this area so McGrath don't want to be in the bad books with our family.”
The tribunal was told he said, "Oh, I should now be scared walking in a dark alley from your family."
Dahdal said: “I was sooooo choked of his racial comment . . . and he was too. . . . as he must have realised what I meant was that McGraths would lose our business.
He said: “I misunderstood you . . . it's to do with the fact that English is my second language."
The tribunal suggested was not possible to predict whether these incidents, if proved, were sufficient to raise an inference that race was one of the reasons for the alleged treatment.
“Ms Dahdal's evidence about those remarks would have to be taken into account together with any other evidence from other witnesses,” the ADT equal opportunity division magistrate Nancy Hennessy ruled.
The real estate agency submitted that they took Dahdal's complaint seriously and investigated thoroughly.
The agency found no impropriety after Dahdal complained to McGrath head office.
She also complained to the Australian Human Rights Commission, to NSW Fair Trading and to the Anti-Discrimination Board.
According to the agency lawyer Greg Jemmeson, her complaint was mere speculation based on hearsay and casual conversations.
