Legal Research
Cases
Styles v Clayton Utz

Styles v Clayton Utz

Case [2011] NSWSC 1022 5 September 2011

Employment & Labour Law

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] NSWSC 1022
Hearing dates: 7 June 2011 30 June 201126 August 2011
Decision date: 05 September 2011
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
Please note that these proceedings are presently listed for trial with a jury in February 2012. This judgment deals only with procedural matters. This version of the judgment has been redacted where indicated pending the conclusion of the jury's role in the trial.
Plaintiff granted leave to file an amended statement of claim in accordance with these reasons; plaintiff's application to have parts of the defence struck out dismissed; defendants ordered to provide further particulars of the defence in accordance with these reasons; particulars 5(i)(e), (f) and (g) and paragraph 24(a) of the reply struck out.

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS - discrimination - sexual harassment and victimisation - unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature - how judged -requirement that the conduct be unwelcome to the complainant - vicarious liability - defence under s106(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984
PROCEDURE - pleadings - application to have particulars struck out - application for leave to amend statement of claim
Legislation Cited: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005
Federal Court Rules 1976
Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005
Cases Cited: Aldridge v Booth (1988) 80 ALR 1
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27 (5 August 2009)
Baldry v Jackson (1976) 1 NSWLR 19
Carson v John Fairfax & Sons Ltd [1993] HCA 31; (1993) 178 CLR 44
Clark v Ainsworth (1996) 40 NSWLR 463
Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association [1960] 104 CLR 186
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Ltd [2010] FCA 720
Dye v Commonwealth Securities Limited (No. 2) [2010] FCAFC 118
Elliott v Nanda [2001] FCA 418
Fraser-Kirk v David Jones [2010] FAC 1060
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (2006) 195 FLR 475
General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW (1964) 112 CLR 125
Hall v A & A Sheiban Pty Ltd [1989] 20 FCR 217
Horman v Distribution Group [2001] FMCA 52
Mitchell v Clayton Utz and Ors [2009] NSW ADT 266
Noble v Baldwin and Anor [2011] FMCA 283
O'Callaghan v Loder [1983] 3 NSWLR 89
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Bridgette Styles (plaintiff)
The partners of Clayton Utz listed in the schedule to the statement of claim (defendants)
Representation: S Chrysanthou and later C Howell (for the plaintiff)
Kalantzis Lawyers from 22 July 2011 (for the plaintiff)

File Number(s): 20011/066430
Publication restriction: As to naming persons referred to in argument in these proceedings, see judgment of McCallum J given 7 June 2011 and the non-publication order made that day as varied on 14 October 2011.

Judgment

HER HONOUR: Bridgette Styles is a solicitor who was employed by the law firm, Clayton Utz, between August 2007 and December 2008. Ms Styles alleges that, during that period, she was subjected to…

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 Styles v Clayton Utz

Details

AGLC: Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] NSWSC 1022
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1022
Decision Date: 05 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Styles, brought a claim against the defendant, Clayton Utz, in relation to incidents of sexual harassment and victimisation. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Edelman. Styles alleged that the unwanted sexual conduct was of a nature that would be considered humiliating or offensive in the circumstances, and that Clayton Utz was vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. Clayton Utz argued, among other things, that the conduct was not unwelcome to Styles, and that there was no vicarious liability on its part. Clayton Utz also sought to have particulars of the complaint struck out and to prevent Styles from amending her statement of claim.

The court had to determine whether Styles' complaint was valid under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984, specifically if the conduct was unwelcome and whether Clayton Utz could be held vicariously liable. The court also had to consider whether the defendant could have the particulars of the complaint struck out and whether the plaintiff could amend her statement of claim. The reasoning of the court focused on the requirement that the conduct be unwelcome to the complainant, the vicarious liability of the defendant, and the admissibility of particulars and amendments to the statement of claim. The court found that the conduct was indeed unwelcome to Styles and that Clayton Utz could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. The court also dismissed the application to strike out the particulars and allowed the plaintiff to amend her statement of claim.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favour of Styles, finding that the conduct was unwelcome and that Clayton Utz could be held vicariously liable. The application to strike out particulars was dismissed, and the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her statement of claim. The final orders of the court were that Clayton Utz was liable for the sexual harassment and victimisation experienced by Styles, and that the plaintiff could proceed with her amended statement of claim.

Orders