Legal Research
Cases
Ramstrom v Baldino

Ramstrom v Baldino

Case [2014] SASC 29

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Civil: Application)
RAMSTROM v BALDINO
[2014] SASC 29
Reasons for Decision of The Honourable Justice Nicholson
7 March 2014
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - SECURITY FOR COSTS
PROCEDURE - COSTS - SECURITY FOR COSTS - OTHER REASONS FOR SECURITY
The respondent sought an order for security for costs of an appeal from a decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal filed by the appellant.
Held: The further prosecution of the appeal is stayed until the appellant has paid into Court the sum of $25,000 to secure the respondent's costs of the appeal.
Equal Opportunity Act 1984 (SA); Supreme Court Rules 2006 Rule 295, referred to.
Ramstrom v Baldino [2013] SAEOT 14; Dagenham Nominees Pty Ltd v Shanks (2011) 110 SASR 577; Morgan v WorkCover Corporation [2013] SASC 47; McVicar v S & J White Pty Ltd [2006] SASC 233, (2006) 245 LSJS 177; Morgan v WorkCover Corporation [2012] SASC 190; Sands v State of South Australia [2013] SASC 105; Devries v Australian National Railways Commission (1993) 177 CLR 472; Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531; Jones v Hyde (1989) 85 ALR 23; Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; Diakos v Mason [2010] SASC 108; Foxgold Pty Ltd v Paterson [2005] SASC 376, considered.

RAMSTROM v BALDINO
[2014] SASC 29
Civil
NICHOLSON J.
Introduction

In proceedings brought in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal the complainant (appellant in this Court) alleged that the respondent (to both the complaint below and to the appeal in this Court) by his words and conduct on various occasions, engaged in actions of sexual harassment directed towards the complainant in the workplace. The Equal Opportunity Tribunal, after a hearing lasting approximately two weeks, dismissed the complainant’s action brought under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984.[1] In a lengthy judgment, the Tribunal came to the conclusion and held that none of the factual allegations made by the complainant, and in contest, had been proved on the balance of probabilities (but in the context of the Briginshaw[2] approach). The Tribunal also held that, to the extent that the respondent had admitted elements of the factual allegations “or something like them”, in each instance, such conduct did not constitute sexual harassment under the Act.
[1] Ramstrom v Baldino [2013] SAEOT 14 (Judgment of her Honour Judge Cole sitting with members Ms H Jsinski and Mr D Shetliffe).
[2] Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336.
By notice of appeal filed 24 January 2014 the complainant has appealed to the Full Court of this Court against the whole of the decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal. By interlocutory application filed in this Court by the respondent on 31 January 2014, the respondent has applied for orders or directions, inter alia:
1.That the Court stay the appeal pending the provision by the…

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 Ramstrom v Baldino

Details

AGLC: Ramstrom v Baldino [2014] SASC 29
Case: [2014] SASC 29
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Ramstrom v Baldino involved an appeal by the complainant (Ramstrom) against the decision of the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, which had dismissed her complaint of sexual harassment against the respondent (Baldino). The Tribunal had found that Ramstrom's evidence was not credible and that Baldino's conduct did not constitute sexual harassment under the Equal Opportunity Act 1984. Baldino applied for an order for security for costs of the appeal, arguing that the appeal had very low prospects of success and that Ramstrom was impecunious. Nicholson J found that there were special circumstances justifying the exercise of the discretion to order security for costs. He noted that the appeal was unlikely to succeed due to the strong findings made by the Tribunal against Ramstrom and that she was impecunious. However, he rejected Ramstrom's argument that an order for security would stultify the appeal. Nicholson J ordered that the further prosecution of the appeal be stayed until Ramstrom paid into Court the sum of $25,000 to secure Baldino's costs of the appeal.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The court found that the Equal Opportunity Tribunal had made strong findings against Ramstrom, rejecting her evidence and preferring that of Baldino on critical issues of fact. The court also found that Ramstrom was impecunious, although it noted that her impecuniosity was largely due to the legal fees she had incurred in the Tribunal proceedings. The court rejected Ramstrom's argument that an order for security would stultify the appeal, noting that the risk of injustice to an appellant if an order for security was prohibitive could be assessed with greater certainty on an appeal than at first instance. The court made an order for security for costs in the amount of $25,000, staying the further prosecution of the appeal until Ramstrom paid that sum into Court.

Orders