Lane v Commissioner of Corrective Services & anor [2002] NSWADT 139

Lane v Commissioner of Corrective Services & anor [2002] NSWADT 139

The applicant bore the onus of proving the alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination and victimisation on the balance of probabilities. The direct allegations against the second respondent were largely word against word; both the applicant and second respondent presented well, and the collateral matters did not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant's account was more probable. For the departmental victimisation complaints, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Kelly and Ms McGlinn, found no detriment within the terms of the Act, and held that the failure to notify the applicant of the investigation outcome was poor administration but not a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Sex Discrimination in Work; Sexual Harassment in Workplace; Victimisation / Principal Matter
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'victimisation' 'workplace Conduct' 'burden of Proof on the Balance of Probabilities']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law'] ['sex Discrimination' 'sexual Harassment' 'victimisation' 'workplace Conduct' 'burden of Proof on the Balance of Probabilities']

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

Sex Discrimination in Work; Sexual Harassment in Workplace; Victimisation / Principal Matter

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second respondent sexually harassed the applicant and treated her less favourably on the ground of sex, and whether the first respondent was liable for that conduct.' 'Whether the second respondent victimised the applicant for making allegations of sexual harassment, and whether the first respondent was liable for that conduct.' 'Whether the Department victimised the applicant by not dealing with her complaint between 1 September 1997 and 7 September 1997.' 'Whether the Department victimised the applicant by failing to provide her with the outcome of its investigation.' 'Whether the Department victimised the applicant by failing to contact her while she was off work suffering from acute anxiety and depression.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant bore the onus of proving the alleged sexual harassment, sex discrimination and victimisation on the balance of probabilities. The direct allegations against the second respondent were largely word against word; both the applicant and second respondent presented well, and the collateral matters did not satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant's account was more probable. For the departmental victimisation complaints, the Tribunal accepted the evidence of Mr Kelly and Ms McGlinn, found no detriment within the terms of the Act, and held that the failure to notify the applicant of the investigation outcome was poor administration but not a breach of the Anti-Discrimination Act...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed.']