Shellharbour Golf Club v Wheeler [1999] NSWSC 224

Shellharbour Golf Club v Wheeler [1999] NSWSC 224

Once it is established that misconduct occurred in a workplace environment and the offender was ostensibly acting as agent for the principal, vicarious liability arises unless the principal proves it did not authorise the conduct, either expressly or by implication, before or after the event. The onus lies with the principal to prove lack of authorisation; failure to discharge this onus results in liability under s 53(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Parties
Appellant: Shellharbour Golf Club Limited; First Respondent: Lynne Isabel Wheeler; Second Respondent: James Gough; Third Respondent: Delmar Veronica Jeffrey; Fourth Respondent: Equal Opportunity Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Sex Discrimination, Vicarious Liability, Statutory Construction, Sexual Harassment
Administrative Law Anti Discrimination Sex Discrimination Vicarious Liability Statutory Construction Sexual Harassment

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shellharbour Golf Club Limited

Appellant

Lynne Isabel Wheeler

First Respondent

James Gough

Second Respondent

Delmar Veronica Jeffrey

Third Respondent

Equal Opportunity Tribunal

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Liability of principal for conduct of agent under Anti-Discrimination Act s 53(1)
  2. 2 Liability of incorporated golf club for conduct of its president
  3. 3 Onus of proof under s 53(1)

Ratio Decidendi

Once it is established that misconduct occurred in a workplace environment and the offender was ostensibly acting as agent for the principal, vicarious liability arises unless the principal proves it did not authorise the conduct, either expressly or by implication, before or after the event. The onus lies with the principal to prove lack of authorisation; failure to discharge this onus results in liability under s 53(1) of the Anti-Discrimination Act.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay first respondent's costs