Bailey v McCrae & Ors (Civil Dispute)

In the case of Bailey v McCrae & Ors, the applicant, Bailey, brought a proceeding against the first respondent, McCrae, and the second respondent, Benitez, in the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The primary dispute centred on claims of serious harm, which under section 122A of the Wrongs Act, is a necessary element for the applicant to establish for her proceeding to continue. The application against the second respondent, Benitez, was dismissed as it was established that a concerns notice was properly served on her.

The court was tasked with determining whether the applicant had established the serious harm element required by section 122A of the Wrongs Act. The court also had to consider interim applications by the first respondent, McCrae, seeking to stay the proceedings and to set aside orders made on 5 October 2023. The first respondent's applications hinged on an appeal made to the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory against the concerns notice decision and other orders. The court had to balance the applicant's right to pursue her claims against the first respondent's procedural challenges.

The tribunal found that the serious harm element was established, allowing the proceeding to continue against the first respondent, McCrae. The application for interim orders to stay the proceedings was dismissed as it was deemed that the appeal to the Supreme Court did not provide sufficient grounds for a stay. Further, the application to set aside the orders and redetermine the serious harm issue was also dismissed. The tribunal ordered the first respondent to provide responses to new material related to their involvement with Resolute TV social media websites, which was raised during the hearing. The tribunal's decision was grounded in the procedural fairness and the necessity to allow the applicant to present all relevant material.

The final orders of the tribunal were that the application against the first respondent, McCrae, was dismissed, and the second respondent, Benitez, was ordered to pay the applicant the sum of $10,000.