Nacu v Alano [2015] NSWCATAD 37

Nacu v Alano [2015] NSWCATAD 37

Although the alleged conduct was capable of amounting to sexual harassment, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant proved the allegations, given the respondent's denials, concerns about the applicant's credibility, the absence of corroborating evidence where it would have been expected, and the credible evidence of Ms Coelho and Mr Cox that they had not observed or become aware of such misconduct before the Anti-Discrimination Board papers were received.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Application Alleging Sexual Harassment Contrary to S22 a of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 No 48 / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs subject to any costs submissions.
Legal Topics
['sexual Harassment' 'workplace Conduct' 'burden and Standard of Proof' 'credibility of Witnesses']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'evidence'] ['sexual Harassment' 'workplace Conduct' 'burden and Standard of Proof' 'credibility of Witnesses']

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

Application Alleging Sexual Harassment Contrary to S22 a of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 No 48 / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent sexually harassed the applicant contrary to s22A of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 No 48.' 'Whether the applicant proved the alleged conduct on the balance of probabilities, having regard to the seriousness of the allegations.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the alleged conduct was capable of amounting to sexual harassment, the Tribunal was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the applicant proved the allegations, given the respondent's denials, concerns about the applicant's credibility, the absence of corroborating evidence where it would have been expected, and the credible evidence of Ms Coelho and Mr Cox that they had not observed or become aware of such misconduct before the Anti-Discrimination Board papers were received.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs subject to any costs submissions.

Orders

  • ['Application is dismissed.' 'Subject to paragraph 60 above, no order as to costs.']