Treglown v Eliam Pty Limited and anor [2010] NSWADT 196

Treglown v Eliam Pty Limited and anor [2010] NSWADT 196

The complaint failed because the Tribunal was satisfied only that comments numbered 1, 6, 7 and 9 were made to the extent admitted by Mr Riley, was not satisfied that any were made during the complaint period or were unwelcome at the time, was not satisfied that comments 1 and 9 were of a sexual nature, and was not satisfied that comments 6 and 7 were made in relation to Ms Treglown. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that a reasonable person would have anticipated that the comments found to have been made would cause offence, humiliation or intimidation, and was not satisfied that Mr Riley met the definition of workplace participant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 August 2010
Procedural Posture
Sexual Harassment Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Final Decision After Referral by the Anti Discrimination Board to the Tribunal Under Section 93 C of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977
Outcome
Complaint dismissed
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment' 'workplace Comments' 'employer and Principal Liability' 'workplace Participant' 'civil Standard of Proof']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['sexual Harassment' 'workplace Comments' 'employer and Principal Liability' 'workplace Participant' 'civil Standard of Proof']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Sexual Harassment Complaint Under the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 / Final Decision After Referral by the Anti Discrimination Board to the Tribunal Under Section 93 C of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether each alleged comment was made by Mr Riley as alleged' 'Whether each alleged comment was made within the complaint period' 'Whether each alleged comment was unwelcome' 'Whether each alleged comment was of a sexual nature' 'Whether each alleged comment was made in relation to Ms Treglown' 'Whether a reasonable person, having regard to all the circumstances, would have anticipated that Ms Treglown would be offended, humiliated or intimidated' "If sexual harassment was established, whether Mr Riley was Ms Treglown's employer or a workplace participant" 'Whether each comment, if made, was made by Mr Riley as the agent or employee of the company']

Ratio Decidendi

The complaint failed because the Tribunal was satisfied only that comments numbered 1, 6, 7 and 9 were made to the extent admitted by Mr Riley, was not satisfied that any were made during the complaint period or were unwelcome at the time, was not satisfied that comments 1 and 9 were of a sexual nature, and was not satisfied that comments 6 and 7 were made in relation to Ms Treglown. The Tribunal was also not satisfied that a reasonable person would have anticipated that the comments found to have been made would cause offence, humiliation or intimidation, and was not satisfied that Mr Riley met the definition of workplace participant.

Court Disposition

Complaint dismissed

Orders

  • ['Pursuant to section 108 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, the complaint of sexual harassment is dismissed']