DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
KATHERINE JOY HODGES (Plaintiff)
And
THE STATE OF QUEENSLAND
by its authorised authority THE FRASER
COAST HEALTH SERVICE trading as
the MARYBOROUGH BASE HOPSITAL (Defendant)FI LE NO/S:
D217 of 2002
DIVISION:
Civil
PROCEEDING:
Claim
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court, Maryborough
DELIVERED ON:
10 November 2006
DELIVERED AT:
Maroochydore
HEARING DATE:
5-6 October 2006
JUDGE:
Judge J.M. Robertson
ORDER:
[1] Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
[2] Judgment for the defendant.
CATCHWORDS:
Negligence – whether employer was negligent – whether failure to provide safe working environment - sexual harassment by fellow employee
COUNSEL:
Mr D. Reid (for the Plaintiff)
Mr B. Hoare (for the Defendant)
SOLICITORS:
Morton & Morton Solicitors (for the Plaintiff)
Bradley & Co Lawyers (for the Defendants)
Introduction
The plaintiff Katherine Hodges claims damages for negligence against her former employer the Maryborough Hospital. The essence of the plaintiff’s case is encapsulated in paragraph 5 of the further amended statement of claim filed by leave during the hearing:
“During the course of the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendant, during the period November 2000 to the end of February 2001, the Plaintiff was required by the Defendant to carry out her work in an environment of sexual harassment and intimidation by the Defendant’s servant or agent, Graeme Edwards, as a result of which the Plaintiff sustained personal injuries, other loss and damage.”
Mrs Hodges claims that the hospital failed to provide her with a safe working environment and as a result of the sexual harassment of her by Edwards at work during this period she suffered a discrete psychiatric illness which has interfered with her enjoyment of life and lead to loss of income both past and future.
Mr Reid in his final submission both written and oral on behalf of Mrs Hodges concentrated on an alleged meeting between the plaintiff’s husband and Wayne Raguse a relieving supervisor in late December / early January 2001 in which it is said that Raguse was told of at least one incident of sexual harassment and did nothing about it; and on the failure of the hospital to have systems in place which would inform employees of what to do and who to talk to if sexually harassed at work. It is not the plaintiff’s case that the hospital is vicariously liable for the actions of its employee Edwards.
Background Circumstances
Katherine Hodges worked for the Maryborough Base Hospital as a cleaner for many years commencing in 1990. She was born on 25.03.68 and is married to Ricki Hodges. Her son Jack was born in 1998; she then took maternity leave for a year and then returned to work part time until November 2000 when she returned to work full time. Her duties involved the cleaning of the Dental Clinic on the hospital grounds.
When she returned to work full time she became friendly with Janine Harris who was temporarily assigned to Operational Services at the Base Hospital from the Wide Bay…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Hodges v State of Qld and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2006] QDC 382
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing the legal issues, the court examined the employer's duty of care towards its employees and the standard of care expected to prevent workplace harassment. It considered the relevant legislative and common law principles concerning employers' obligations to ensure a safe and harassment-free workplace. The court found that the employer had taken reasonable steps to prevent and respond to workplace harassment, including having policies and procedures in place. The court concluded that the employer did not breach its duty of care by failing to prevent the harassment that occurred. As a result, the plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favour of the defendant.
Orders
Orders of the court
[1] Plaintiff’s claim dismissed.
[2] Judgment for the defendant.
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.