Casey v Blume - [2012] QCAT 627

CITATION:

Casey v Blume [2012] QCAT 627

PARTIES:	Gladys Casey (Applicant)
v
Christopher Blume (Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

ADL021-12

MATTER TYPE:

Anti-discrimination matters

HEARING DATE:

8 November 2012

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Jeremy Gordon, Member

DELIVERED ON:

21 November 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

(1) Christopher Blume is ordered to pay Ms Gladys Casey the sum of $10,000 compensation for sexual harassment and vilification on grounds of race. This sum includes interest and allowable losses. This sum is payable immediately.

(2) Christopher Blume is ordered not to make any remark with sexual connotations relating to Gladys Casey with the intention or effect of offending, humiliating or intimidating her.

(3) Christopher Blume is ordered not to engage in any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to Gladys Casey.

(4) Christopher Blume is ordered not to by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of Gladys Casey on the ground of race or gender.

(5) Orders 2, 3 and 4 above shall continue in force until 21 November 2013.

CATCHWORDS:

SEXUAL HARASSMENT – RACIAL VILIFICATION – whether proved – correct level of compensation

Anti-Discrimination Act 1991, ss 119, 124A, 209

Casey v Flanagan [2011] QCAT 320
Ramsay v Pigram (1968) 118 CLR 271
Alexander, Myles, Anderson and Khan v Aoun [1996] QADT 20
Alexander v Home Office [1988] 2 All ER 118

APPEARANCES and REPRESENTATION (if any):

APPLICANT: Gladys Casey

RESPONDENT: No appearance

REASONS FOR DECISION

Gladys Casey has suffered abuse and vilification on the citizens band radio.

Since the end of 2008 one of the perpetrators has been Christopher Blume, the respondent to this claim. The allegation is that Mr Blume has frequently referred to Ms Casey over the citizens band network in derogatory terms using explicitly sexual and racist language. This included encouraging listeners to attend Ms Casey’s home for sex. He also published a picture of her and her vehicle on YouTube.

Mr Blume has chosen not to appear at the hearing despite being properly served with the proceedings and of the hearing date. To the extent that Mr Blume has sexually harassed her and subjected her to racial vilification she brings this claim for compensation relying on provisions in the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991.

Similar claim against Mr Flanagan

Ms Casey brought a similar claim against Paul Flanagan and this was heard in QCAT on 21 and 22 June 2011, with a decision delivered on 8 July 2011[1] in which Mr Flanagan was ordered to pay Ms Casey $5,000 as compensation for unlawful discrimination. Mr Flanagan was found to have conducted himself very similarly to the allegations made in this claim against Mr Blume. It was suggested in that claim that Mr Flanagan encouraged others including Mr Blume to do the things now alleged against him. Mr Blume gave evidence in that case and denied that he had done these things and denied that Mr Flanagan had encouraged him to do so. The member who heard the case disbelieved…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Casey v Blume

Details

AGLC: Casey v Blume [2012] QCAT 627
Case: [2012] QCAT 627
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Gladys Casey brought an action against Christopher Blume alleging sexual harassment and racial vilification. The case was heard by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The primary issues before the Court were whether Blume's conduct amounted to sexual harassment and racial vilification and, if so, what the appropriate level of compensation should be.

The Court found that Blume had indeed engaged in conduct that constituted sexual harassment and racial vilification. It was established that Blume had made unwelcome sexual advances towards Casey and had made racially vilifying remarks about her. The Court examined the nature and context of the conduct, the impact on Casey, and the relevant statutory provisions. Based on these findings, the Court determined that Blume's conduct met the legal criteria for both sexual harassment and racial vilification. In assessing the appropriate compensation, the Court considered the nature of the harm suffered by Casey, the severity of the conduct, and the need for deterrence. The Court awarded Casey $10,000 in compensation, which included interest and allowable losses.

In addition to the compensation, the Court issued several orders to prevent future occurrences of the same conduct. Blume was prohibited from making any remark with sexual connotations relating to Casey, engaging in any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, or inciting hatred or contempt towards Casey on the grounds of race or gender. These orders were set to remain in force until a specified date, providing Casey with ongoing protection against further harassment and vilification. The Court's decision underscores the importance of upholding workplace standards and protecting individuals from discriminatory and harassing conduct.

Orders

Orders of the court

(2) Christopher Blume is ordered not to make any remark with sexual connotations relating to Gladys Casey with the intention or effect of offending, humiliating or intimidating her.

(3) Christopher Blume is ordered not to engage in any unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature in relation to Gladys Casey.

(4) Christopher Blume is ordered not to by a public act, incite hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of Gladys Casey on the ground of race or gender.

(5) Orders 2, 3 and 4 above shall continue in force until 21 November 2013.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.