Gilroy v Angelov [2000] FCA 1775

Gilroy v Angelov [2000] FCA 1775

The Court found that Ms Gilroy was subjected to sexual harassment by Mr Angelov during her employment with Botting Co; and that her employer, having actual knowledge or failing to take any steps to prevent harassment after being made aware, could not establish the statutory defence under s 106(2). Therefore, the employer was vicariously liable under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and required to compensate Ms Gilroy for injury to feelings, humiliation, and other consequences of harassment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the applicant against the second respondents. Damages of $24,000 and costs awarded to Ms Gilroy.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability of Employers' 'reasonable Steps Defence' 'assessment of Damages']
['human Rights Law' 'employment Law' 'anti Discrimination Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'vicarious Liability of Employers' 'reasonable Steps Defence' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Civil / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Ms Gilroy was sexually harassed by Mr Angelov under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.' 'Whether the employer, Botting Co, is vicariously liable for acts of sexual harassment under s 106 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984.' 'Whether the employer took all reasonable steps to prevent the sexual harassment as a defence to liability.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that Ms Gilroy was subjected to sexual harassment by Mr Angelov during her employment with Botting Co; and that her employer, having actual knowledge or failing to take any steps to prevent harassment after being made aware, could not establish the statutory defence under s 106(2). Therefore, the employer was vicariously liable under the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 and required to compensate Ms Gilroy for injury to feelings, humiliation, and other consequences of harassment.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the applicant against the second respondents. Damages of $24,000 and costs awarded to Ms Gilroy.

Orders

  • ['Judgment be entered in favour of the applicant, Leoni Michelle Gilroy, against the second respondents, Craig Botting and Toni Botting, in the sum of twenty four thousand dollars ($24,000).' 'The said respondents to pay the applicant her costs of the proceeding.']