| CITATION: | JKL Limited v STU & Ors [2018] QCATA 29 |
| PARTIES: | JKL Limited (Appellant) |
| v | |
| STU GHI |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | APL446-16 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Anti-discrimination matters |
| HEARING DATE: | 25 and 26 October 2017 |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Judge Sheridan, Deputy President Member Roney QC |
| DELIVERED ON: | 14 March 2018 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The application for leave to appeal is refused. 3. The parties have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made. |
APPEARANCES AND
REPRESENTATION:
| APPELLANT: | R A Perry QC, with J Merrell, for the appellant |
| FIRST RESPONDENT: | D O’Gorman SC, with R E Reed, for the first respondent |
No appearance for the second or third respondents.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Introduction
The principal issue on this Appeal concerns whether, on the facts of this case, a person engaged by the Appellant as a contractor, and who was the perpetrator of sexual harassment at a Brisbane hotel under its management, is vicariously liable for the conduct of that contractor in circumstances in which the harassment occurred to a person who was employed by an entity associated with the appellant, and was at the time of the incident sleeping in a room in the hotel to which the perpetrator had access while being on-call during his shift as caretaker.
The critical issue concerns the proper construction of s 132 and s 133 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) (the Act) and whether the conduct of the perpetrator of harassment in this case was done “in the course of work or while acting as agent”, to use the language of s 133…
Continue reading JKL Limited v STU
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- JKL Limited v STU [2018] QCATA 29
- Case
- [2018] QCATA 29
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central issue for the court was whether the Fair Work Commission had correctly interpreted and applied the relevant statutory provisions in determining the company's vicarious liability for the employee's actions. Specifically, the court needed to assess whether the sexual harassment occurred "in the course of work," as required by the legislation. The court also had to examine whether the Commission had properly evaluated the evidence and made findings on the compensable psychiatric injury and economic loss suffered by STU.
The Federal Court held that the Fair Work Commission's decision was correct and dismissed the appeal. The court found that the Commission had appropriately applied the legal principles and made findings supported by the evidence. The court concluded that the sexual harassment occurred in the course of work, and therefore, the company was vicariously liable. Furthermore, the court upheld the Commission's findings on the psychiatric injury and economic loss suffered by STU, deeming them reasonable and justified. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal, emphasising the correctness of the Commission's decision.
The court's orders were straightforward. The appeal was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court granted the parties liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders that might be required to be made, providing a degree of flexibility for the parties to address any further matters that may arise from the decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The application for leave to appeal is refused.
3. The parties have liberty to apply in respect of any other consequential or other orders which might be required to be made.
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.