Brown v Richmond Golf Club & anor [2006] NSWADT 104

Brown v Richmond Golf Club & anor [2006] NSWADT 104

The Tribunal found that the use of the terms 'Babe' and 'Honey' by Mr Slym constituted sexual harassment under s 22A(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, but dismissed complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation against the Club, as it did not expressly or impliedly authorise the conduct and there was insufficient causal connection between Ms Brown's complaints and any detriment she suffered.

Parties
Applicant: Maree Alison Brown; First Respondent: Richmond Golf Club Ltd; Second Respondent: Ronald Slym
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Equal Opportunity Complaint / Final Hearing and Decision
Outcome
Sexual harassment complaint substantiated in part; sex discrimination and victimisation complaints dismissed.
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Victimisation, Sex Discrimination at Work
Sex Discrimination Employment Law Sexual Harassment Victimisation Sex Discrimination at Work

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maree Alison Brown

Applicant

Richmond Golf Club Ltd

First Respondent

Ronald Slym

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Equal Opportunity Complaint / Final Hearing and Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conduct alleged amounted to sexual harassment under s 22A and 22B of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977
  2. 2 Whether the language used constituted sex discrimination under s 25(2)
  3. 3 Whether the treatment alleged amounted to victimisation under s 50

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the use of the terms 'Babe' and 'Honey' by Mr Slym constituted sexual harassment under s 22A(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977, but dismissed complaints of sex discrimination and victimisation against the Club, as it did not expressly or impliedly authorise the conduct and there was insufficient causal connection between Ms Brown's complaints and any detriment she suffered.

Court Disposition

Sexual harassment complaint substantiated in part; sex discrimination and victimisation complaints dismissed.

Orders

  • The complaints of victimisation and sex discrimination made against the First Respondent are dismissed.
  • That part of the complaint of sexual harassment that relates to the use of inappropriate language by the Second Respondent is substantiated.