Styles v Clayton Utz (No 3) - [2011] NSWSC 1452

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Styles v Clayton Utz (No. 3) [2011] NSWSC 1452
Hearing dates: 7 June 2011 30 June 201126 August 2011
Decision date: 05 September 2011
Before: McCallum J
Decision:
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)
B D Hodgkinson SC with K Nomchong & A Dawson (for the defendants)
Kalantzis Lawyers from 22 July 2011 (for the plaintiff)
Clayton Utz and later Freehills (for the defendants)

File Number(s): 20011/066430

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 sexual harassment by other solicitors in the firm, contrary to section 28B(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth). She further alleges that, after she made some of her harassment allegations, she was victimised on that basis, contrary to s 94 of the Act. By these proceedings, Ms Styles claims relief against the partners of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Styles v Clayton Utz (No 3) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWSC 1452
Decision Date: 05 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Styles v Clayton Utz (No 3) involved the respondent, Clayton Utz, a law firm, and the appellant, Ms Styles, a former employee of the firm. The primary dispute was whether the law firm was vicariously liable for sexual harassment and victimisation that occurred in the workplace. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which had jurisdiction to review the decisions of the lower courts.

The legal issues before the court were whether the conduct in question constituted unwelcome conduct of a sexual nature, and whether the law firm could be held vicariously liable under section 106(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The court had to consider whether the conduct was indeed unwelcome to the complainant, and whether the law firm could be held responsible for the actions of its employees. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the law firm could be held liable despite its compliance with an internal anti-harassment policy.

The court held that the conduct in question was unwelcome to the complainant and therefore constituted sexual harassment. The court also found that the law firm could be held vicariously liable for the actions of its employees. The court found that the law firm's compliance with an internal anti-harassment policy was not a sufficient defence under section 106(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984. The court held that the law firm had a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the harassment from occurring, and that its failure to do so amounted to a breach of that duty. The court also found that the law firm was liable for the victimisation of the complainant, as it had failed to take appropriate action in response to her complaints.

The final orders of the court were that the law firm was liable for the sexual harassment and victimisation of the complainant, and that it was responsible for paying damages to the complainant. The court also ordered that the law firm take steps to prevent similar incidents from occurring in the future.

Orders