damages by way of compensation. Mr Burns says Mr Sunol has not complied with these orders. 3 This decision relates to complaints which were heard on 5 July 2013. Since then three further matters involving the same parties and similar allegations of vilification and victimisation have been heard or listed for hearing. 4 On 1 January 2014, the Administrative Decisions Tribunal was abolished and the jurisdiction to hear complaints under the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 was assigned to the Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal. In accordance with Cl 6 of Schedule 1 to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013, this complaint is a "part heard" proceeding. The provisions of the AD Act continue to apply. REFUSAL OF ADJOURNMENT 5 On the morning of the hearing on 5 July 2013, Mr Sunol faxed a "medical certificate" to the Tribunal from Dr N Humphreys stating that he had examined Mr Sunol on 4 July 2013. Dr Humphreys wrote that Mr Sunol had a "medical condition" and would be unfit for duty or court from 4-6 July 2013. A letter from Mr Sunol accompanying that certificate stated that, "I am not well enough to attend the Burns v Sunol hearing on July 5th 2013. I would like to apply for an adjournment of this case . . ." When Mr Sunol telephoned the Registry on the morning of the hearing, a staff member told him he would have to make his application for an adjournment to the Tribunal by phone. When we telephoned Mr Sunol at the beginning of the hearing he stated that he had a "bug in his throat" and that he had been in hospital. He told us that he was on the bus on the way to the hospital to get his "hospital discharge" document. 6 Mr Burns opposed the adjournment application quoting a statement on Mr Sunol's blog dated 30 June 2013 in which he said that he was going to apply for an adjournment. 7 We refused Mr Sunol's application for an adjournment because we were not satisfied that Mr Sunol was genuinely unable to participate in the hearing because of a medical condition. We offered Mr Sunol the opportunity to participate in the hearing by phone. He accepted that suggestion and participated with no sign of any physical incapacity. HOMOSEXUAL VILIFICATION PROVISIONS 8 It is unlawful to publicly vilify a person on the ground of homosexuality. Section 49ZT of the AD Act states that: