Legal Research
Cases
Hill v Hughes

Hill v Hughes

Case [2019] FCCA 1267 24 May 2019

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HILL v HUGHES

[2019] FCCA 1267

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS – Sexual Harassment – relentless attempt to woo employee by employer – whether advances were sexual in nature – damages and aggravated damages – total compensation awarded of $170,000.

Legislation:

Australia Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PO, 46PE, 46PF(1)(b); 46PH; 46PH(2); 46PH(1)(i); 46PH(1B)(b); 46PO(4)(d)

Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth), ss.3(c); 28A

Cases cited:

Clarke v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 307

Richardson v Oracle Corporation Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 82

Applicant:

CATHERINE MIA HILL

Respondent:

OWEN HUGHES T/AS BEESLEY AND HUGHES LAWYERS

File Number:

BRG 1161 of 2017

Judgment of:

Judge Vasta

Hearing dates:

19 and 20 March 2019

Date of Last Submission:

2 May 2019

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

24 May 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr S. Priestley

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Somerville Laundry Lomax Solicitors

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms A. Hellewell

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Beesley and Hughes Lawyers

THE COURT DECLARES

(A) That the conduct of the Respondent towards the Applicant amounted to sexual harassment.

ORDERS

That the Respondent pay to the Applicant damages in the sum of $170,000 by way of compensation for loss and damage suffered because of the conduct of the Respondent.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISANE

BRG 1161 of 2017

CATHERINE MIA HILL

Applicant

And

OWEN HUGHES T/AS BEESLEY AND HUGHES LAWYERS

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

The Applicant, Catherine Mia Hill, began working with the Respondent, Owen Hughes, in May 2015. The evidence shows that that the Respondent thought the Applicant was attractive and wanted to be in a relationship with her. The Respondent communicated that to the Applicant.
The real issue in this case is whether the conduct of the Respondent amounted to sexual harassment.
At its core, sexual harassment is a social practice of enforced inequality that demeans individuals on the basis of sex. This is especially so in the workplace. As can be seen from s.3(c) of the Sex Discrimination Act1984 (Cth) (“the Act”), sexual harassment law seeks to address those workplace power imbalances that result from fear, silencing and the harms that flow from sexual hierarchy.
For the reasons that follow, the Court finds, unequivocally, that the conduct of the Respondent is the very conduct that the law of sexual harassment seeks to eliminate.

Personal Circumstances of the Applicant

The Applicant was born on 25 May 1964. She completed a Bachelor of Arts degree in the early 1990s and had lived in New York and London working as an editor in the publication industry. She married and had a child whilst living overseas.
The Applicant returned to Australia in August 2004 with her husband and child and had a second child in November 2006. In 2007, she separated from her husband and began studying law part-time in 2008. She was admitted to legal practice in April 2015.
After separating from her husband, the Applicant determined that she needed to find employment in the northern area…

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 Hill v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Hill v Hughes [2019] FCCA 1267
Case: [2019] FCCA 1267
Decision Date: 24 May 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hill v Hughes*, the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) considered a claim of sexual harassment brought by an employee, Ms. Hill, against her employer, Mr. Hughes. The dispute centred on allegations that Mr. Hughes engaged in a relentless campaign of unwanted advances towards Ms. Hill, which she contended constituted sexual harassment.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr. Hughes' conduct was sexual in nature and, if so, whether it amounted to unlawful sexual harassment under the relevant anti-discrimination legislation. The Tribunal also had to assess the appropriate quantum of damages, including aggravated damages, to be awarded to Ms. Hill for the harm suffered as a result of the harassment.

Judge Vasta found that Mr. Hughes' persistent attempts to woo Ms. Hill, which included unwanted physical contact and propositions, were indeed sexual in nature and constituted sexual harassment. The Tribunal applied principles of anti-discrimination law, focusing on the impact of the conduct on the victim and the unwelcome nature of the advances. In assessing damages, the Tribunal considered the distress, humiliation, and psychological impact on Ms. Hill, as well as the employer's conduct in exacerbating her suffering, leading to an award of $170,000 in total compensation.

Orders