Gilroy v Angelov

Case [2000] FCA 1775

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Gilroy v Angelov [2000] FCA 1775

HUMAN RIGHTS – Sex discrimination – alleged sexual harassment by one employee of another – claim by first respondent against employer – sexual harassment found proved – issue as to whether employer had knowledge of inappropriate behaviour – discussion about extent of employer’s obligation (if liability is to be avoided) where employer is not aware of inappropriate behaviour – assessment of damages.

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 ss 14, 28A, 28B, 106.

Boyle v Ishan Ozden and Ors (1986) EOC 92-165, discussed.

LEONI MICHELLE GILROY v BRANKO ANGELOV and CRAIG BOTTING AND TONI BOTTING trading as C & T BOTTING CLEANING COMPANY
No.465 of 2000

WILCOX J
SYDNEY
8 DECEMBER 2000


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY

No.465 of 2000

BETWEEN:

LEONI MICHELLE GILROY
Applicant

AND:

BRANKO ANGELOV
First Respondent

CRAIG BOTTING AND TONI BOTTING trading as C & T BOTTING CLEANING COMPANY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

WILCOX

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2000

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (HEARD AT WOLLONGONG)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant, Leoni Michelle Gilroy, against the second respondents, Craig Botting and Toni Botting, in the sum of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000).

2.The said respondents pay to the said applicant her costs of the proceeding.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALESDISTRICT REGISTRY

No.465 of 2000

BETWEEN:

LEONI MICHELLE GILROY
Applicant

AND:

BRANKO ANGELOV
First Respondent

CRAIG BOTTING AND TONI BOTTING trading as C & T BOTTING CLEANING COMPANY
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

WILCOX

DATE:

8 DECEMBER 2000

PLACE:

SYDNEY (HEARD AT WOLLONGONG)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. WILCOX J:  The applicant in this case, Leoni Michelle Gilroy, alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment by a fellow-employee, Branko Angelov, the first respondent, during the course of her employment by C & T Botting Cleaning Company (“Botting Co”). Botting Co is a firm owned by Craig Botting and his wife, Toni.  They are the second respondents.  The firm carries on business as a contract cleaner in the Illawarra region of New South Wales.

  2. Mr Angelov left the employment of Botting Co shortly after Ms Gilroy made a complaint about his conduct to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.  His present whereabouts are not known to Ms Gilroy or, I gather, to either Mr or Mrs Botting.  It is thought he may have left Australia.  Whether or not that is so, Ms Gilroy was not able to effect service on him of the Application filed in this Court.  So she accepts she is unable to obtain relief against him in this proceeding.  However, Ms Gilroy presses a claim for damages against her former employers, the partners in Botting Co.

    THE RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS

  3. Ms Gilroy brings this proceeding in reliance on s 14(1) and (2) and s28B(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. 

  4. Sub-sections (1) and (2) of s 14 are…

Continue reading Gilroy v Angelov

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gilroy v Angelov [2000] FCA 1775
Case
[2000] FCA 1775
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gilroy v Angelov involved a dispute between Leoni Michelle Gilroy and Craig Botting and Toni Botting, regarding Gilroy's wrongful dismissal from her employment. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary contention was whether Gilroy's dismissal was justified and whether it breached any terms of her employment or statutory provisions.

The court was tasked with determining whether Gilroy's dismissal was wrongful and if there was any breach of contract or statutory employment protections. This involved examining the circumstances of Gilroy's employment, the events leading to her dismissal, and the reasons provided by the Bottings for her termination. The court also needed to assess the credibility of Gilroy's evidence and the counter-evidence provided by the Bottings.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the evidence presented by both parties. Gilroy maintained her version of events, despite cross-examination, and presented character evidence from friends to support her emotional state at the time. The Bottings contested the allegations and provided their own account of the events. The court ultimately found Gilroy's evidence more credible and concluded that her dismissal was wrongful. The court held that the Bottings were liable to Gilroy for the sum of twenty-four thousand dollars, and ordered them to pay her costs of the proceeding.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant, Leoni Michelle Gilroy, against the second respondents, Craig Botting and Toni Botting, in the sum of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000).

2. The said respondents pay to the said applicant her costs of the proceeding.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Mr D Crampton, solicitor for Mr and Mrs Botting, closely cross-examined Ms Gilroy about all the events described in her affidavit. He challenged her evidence that she had conversations with Mr Botting, on the subject of Mr Angelov’s behaviour, earlier than Thursday 26 November. However, Ms Gilroy did not resile from her account of the facts.(ii)Ms Cochrane’s evidence Ms C Howell, counsel for Ms Gilroy, called three witnesses to speak of Ms Gilroy’s condition at the time of her employment by Botting Co. The first was a friend, Nicole Cochrane. Ms Cochrane has known Ms Gilroy since about 1987. The two women, and Ms Gilroy’s daughter, Emma, had shared a house for some months in 1996-1997. During the period of Ms Gilroy’s employment by Botting Co, Ms Cochrane resided in the village of Oak Flats, about three or four kilometres from the farm where Ms Gilroy lived with Emma. Ms Cochrane used to visit the farm about once a week or once a fortnight. She stayed at the farm over the weekend that occurred about two weeks before Ms Gilroy’s dismissal by Mr Botting. Ms Cochrane gave this description of Ms Gilroy’s personality during the period in 1996-1997 when the two women shared a house:“Very placid. Very home caring. She is very loving to her daughter. Very conscious of her friends and their needs and someone who has always been there if you need someone to talk to.” Ms Cochrane was then asked what she remembered of Ms Gilroy’s demeanour when she stayed for the weekend in mid-November 1998. She replied:“She was distressed, yes, very upset. She was frightened, because she lived on the farm and it was quite a distance from any other house - - -” Ms Cochrane’s evidence went on:“If I could just stop you there. Was there anything that you observed about her that led you to the conclusion that she was distressed?—She’d break down in tears very quickly. She was always, when I was there at the weekend, she was always looking out the windows or if the dogs barked she’d be straight to a window looking out to see if there was someone coming. Just always, I don’t know how to explain it, just she’d start crying if we were talking and something upset her, or if she dropped something it would be ‘I can’t handle this’ and she would start bursting into tears, and things like that.Prior to October 1998 had you ever seen her behaving that way before? – I’d never even seen Leoni cry. She’s always been so happy and fun loving.” On the day of Ms Gilroy’s dismissal, Ms Cochrane accompanied her to collect her pay from Mrs Botting. In a statement verified by her affidavit, Ms Cochrane gave this account of what happened:“Not long after this, Leonie told me that she was sacked from her job. I asked her why, and she said that the boss, Mr Bottings [sic], told her that his wife thought that they were having an affair. The wife was making threats to Leonie. She told her that if she was walking down the road, she would run her over. Leonie asked me to come with her to pick up her final pay, as she was very scared of what Mrs Bottings might do.On the day that we went, Mrs Bottings approached us on the balcony, she was very angry and I could see in her face that she didn’t like Leonie. She was very short with Leonie, and then paid her in one dollar coins. One by one, just to see her reaction I believe.

Decision

Reasons for decision

WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WILCOX J

Full text does not contain this section.