Giovanetti v State of New South Wales (Department of TAFE) [2011] NSWADT 195

Giovanetti v State of New South Wales (Department of TAFE) [2011] NSWADT 195

The Tribunal was not satisfied that any alleged acts of sexual harassment occurred as claimed. The applicant's evidence was found unreliable and uncorroborated. Consequently, no breach by TAFE of complicity provisions was established, and all complaints were dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Benjamin Giovanetti; First Respondent: TAFE NSW; Second Respondent: Timothy Massie; Third Respondent: Ashley Wayne Morcom; Fourth Respondent: Travis Liam Mahoney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 August 2011
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Sexual Harassment and Complicity / Final Judgment
Outcome
Complaints dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment at Educational Institutions, Complicity in Sexual Harassment, Duty to Prevent Harassment, Complaint Procedures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benjamin Giovanetti

Applicant

TAFE NSW

First Respondent

Timothy Massie

Second Respondent

Ashley Wayne Morcom

Third Respondent

Travis Liam Mahoney

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Complaint of Sexual Harassment and Complicity / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the alleged acts of sexual harassment occurred
  2. 2 Whether TAFE permitted acts of sexual harassment by students
  3. 3 Whether TAFE was complicit in harassment in breach of section 52 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was not satisfied that any alleged acts of sexual harassment occurred as claimed. The applicant's evidence was found unreliable and uncorroborated. Consequently, no breach by TAFE of complicity provisions was established, and all complaints were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Complaints dismissed

Orders

  • The complaints of sexual harassment against each of the Second, Third and Fourth respondents are dismissed.
  • The complaint of complicity against the First Respondent is dismissed.