Constance v Leguire & Ors (CS 183/2007) [2012] SCSC 17 (18 May 2012)

Constance v Leguire & Ors (CS 183/2007) [2012] SCSC 17 (18 May 2012)

The first defendant sexually harassed the plaintiff, which constitutes a fault in law for which he is liable. There was no evidence that the second or third defendants knew of or condoned the harassment, nor were they vicariously liable for the acts of the first defendant, who was not their employee or agent.

Citation
[2012] SCSC 17
Parties
Plaintiff: Constance; First Defendant: Leguire; Second Defendant: Second Defendant (owner/director of Restaurant Tarosa); Third Defendant: Third Defendant (manager of Restaurant Tarosa)
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
18 May 2012
Case Number
CS 183/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; claim against second and third defendants dismissed
Legal Topics
Sexual Harassment, Employer's Duty of Care, Vicarious Liability, Damages
Source Language
English
Employment Law Tort Law Sexual Harassment Employer's Duty of Care Vicarious Liability 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Constance

Plaintiff

Leguire

First Defendant

Second Defendant (owner/director of Restaurant Tarosa)

Second Defendant

Third Defendant (manager of Restaurant Tarosa)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was there sexual harassment of the plaintiff by the first defendant?
  2. 2 Were these harassments known to and made with the connivance of the second and/or third defendants?
  3. 3 Are the second and/or third defendants liable for the sexual harassment of the plaintiff by the first defendant?

Ratio Decidendi

The first defendant sexually harassed the plaintiff, which constitutes a fault in law for which he is liable. There was no evidence that the second or third defendants knew of or condoned the harassment, nor were they vicariously liable for the acts of the first defendant, who was not their employee or agent.

Court Disposition

judgment for plaintiff against first defendant; claim against second and third defendants dismissed

Orders

  • First defendant to pay plaintiff R 25,000 as moral damages with interest and costs
  • Plaintiff's claim against second and third defendants dismissed with no order as to costs