Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) - [2011] NSWSC 1219

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219
Hearing dates: Friday 7 October 2011
Decision date: 11 October 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.
Plaintiff's application for leave further to amend her amended and consolidated statement of claim dismissed; paragraphs 41E(ix) and 44(a) of the amended and consolidated statement of claim struck out; plaintiff's application for orders setting aside three subpoenas addressed to former employers dismissed

Catchwords:
HUMAN RIGHTS - discrimination - sexual harassment - unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature - whether conduct alleged capable of amounting to conduct of a sexual nature in relation to the plaintiff

PROCEDURE - pleadings - application for further leave to amend - application to have parts of amended pleading struck out as being inconsistent with earlier leave
PROCEDURE - subpoenas - application to set aside
Legislation Cited: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth)
Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 27
Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] NSWSC 1022
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties: Bridgette Styles (plaintiff)
The partners of Clayton Utz listed in the schedule to the statement of claim (defendants)
Representation:
Plaintiff in person
S Dawson (defendants)
Freehills (defendants)

File Number(s): 2011/66430
Publication restriction: As to naming people 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: These are proceedings under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The proceedings were transferred to this Court by the Federal Court by consent in February of this year pursuant to section 5(4) of the Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross Vesting) Act 1987 (Cth). They are listed for hearing early next year.

The plaintiff, Ms Bridgette Styles, alleges that she was subjected to sexual harassment and victimisation in contravention of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) whilst she was employed as a solicitor by the defendant firm, Clayton Utz.

On 5 September 2011, I determined a series of disputes between the parties as to the pleadings and granted leave to the plaintiff to file an Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim in accordance with my reasons published that date: Styles v Clayton Utz [2011] NSWSC 1022.

The Amended and Consolidated Statement of Claim was filed on 19 September 2011. There are now three further applications before the Court, which the Registrar listed before me sitting as Duty Judge last week (presumably in light of the fact that I have been case managing the proceedings).

Two of the applications relate to the amended pleadings. The first is the plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 19 September 2011 (the very day on which the amended pleading was filed) seeking leave to make four further amendments to the amended pleading.

Ms…

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 (No 2)

Details

AGLC: Styles v Clayton Utz (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1219
Case: [2011] NSWSC 1219
Decision Date: 11 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff alleged that she was sexually harassed by her former employer, the defendant, and brought an action in the Federal Court. The defendant sought further and better particulars of the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff applied for leave to amend her statement of claim, which was granted. The defendant then applied for parts of the amended pleading to be struck out, arguing they were inconsistent with the earlier leave. The plaintiff applied to set aside subpoenas issued by the defendant in relation to a new witness. The defendant opposed the application, arguing it was an abuse of process. The court considered the plaintiff's application to amend her pleading, the defendant's application to strike out parts of the amended pleading, and the plaintiff's application to set aside subpoenas.

The court held that the plaintiff's amended pleading sufficiently alleged conduct of a sexual nature. The court noted that the plaintiff did not need to allege every detail of the conduct but needed to provide enough information to enable the defendant to respond. The court held that the defendant's application to strike out parts of the amended pleading was premature. The court held that the plaintiff's application to set aside subpoenas was an abuse of process. The court noted that the plaintiff had not shown any good reason for not disclosing the new witness earlier. The court held that the subpoenas should not be set aside.

The court granted the plaintiff's application to amend her pleading, subject to certain conditions. The court held that the defendant's application to strike out parts of the amended pleading be dismissed. The court held that the plaintiff's application to set aside subpoenas be dismissed. The court ordered that the defendant file an amended defence within 28 days of the judgment.

Orders