HUMAN RIGHTS – sexual harassment – sex discrimination – enforcement of determination of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission – hearing de novo – whether sexual harassment by fellow employee – whether employer vicariously liable – whether employer discriminated against applicant on the ground of her sex – whether employer unlawfully victimised applicant in terminating her employment
HUMAN RIGHTS – sexual harassment – damages – where respondents did not appear at inquiry before Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
ROGER GRAHAM & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE OF ORDER:
4 FEBRUARY 2002
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited pay to the applicant $16,000 within 21 days of the date of this order.
2.The liability of Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited under paragraph 1 of this order be joint and several.
3.Subject to the issue of costs, the application be otherwise dismissed.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
N4 OF 2001
BETWEEN:
LOUISE LESLIE APPLICANT
AND:
LINCOLN GRAHAM FIRST RESPONDENT
ROGER GRAHAM & ASSOCIATES PTY LIMITED SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE:
BRANSON J
DATE:
4 FEBRUARY 2002
PLACE:
SYDNEY
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
BRANSON J
INTRODUCTION
The applicant (“Ms Leslie”), who was a complainant before the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (“the Commission”), by an application filed on 4 January 2001 commenced a proceeding under subs 83A(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (“the SDA”) in the Court for an order to enforce a determination of the Commission made under subs 81(1) of the SDA. Although subs 83A(1) of the SDA was repealed by s 101 of the Human Rights Legislation Amendment Act (No. 1) 1999 (Cth), s 8(e) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) preserves its operation in relation to the maintenance of the proceedings.
On 10 November 1997 Ms Leslie lodged with the Commission a complaint in writing alleging that the first respondent (“Mr Lincoln Graham”) and the second respondent (“Roger Graham & Associates”) by its directors Mr Roger…
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 Leslie v Graham
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Leslie v Graham [2002] FCA 32
Case
[2002] FCA 32
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Leslie, brought a proceeding against Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited. Leslie sought recovery of $16,000, which was a sum owed to him under a contract. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Leslie was entitled to recover the sum owed under the contract and, if so, against whom. The court had to determine whether the contract was valid and if the applicants were liable for the sum claimed.
The court found that the contract was valid and enforceable. It further found that Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited were liable for the sum owed under the contract. The court found that the applicants had breached the terms of the contract by failing to pay Leslie the sum owed. The court held that Leslie was entitled to recover the sum owed under the contract.
Accordingly, the court ordered that Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited pay to Leslie $16,000 within 21 days of the date of the order. The court also ordered that the liability of Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited under this order be joint and several. Finally, the court dismissed the application otherwise, subject to the issue of costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited pay to the applicant $16,000 within 21 days of the date of this order.
2. The liability of Lincoln Graham and Roger Graham & Associates Pty Limited under paragraph 1 of this order be joint and several.
3. Subject to the issue of costs, the application be otherwise dismissed.