Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Vergara v Ewin [2014] FCAFC 100 Citation: Vergara v Ewin [2014] FCAFC 100
Appeal from: Ewin v Vergara (No 3) [2013] FCA 1311
Parties: CLAUDIO VERGARA v JEMMA EWIN
File number: VID 45 of 2014
Judges: NORTH, PAGONE AND WHITE JJ
Date of judgment: 12 August 2014
Corrigendum: 14 November 2014
Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – discrimination – sexual harassment – appeal against finding of sexual harassment by unwanted sexual intercourse – appellant challenged finding that sexual intercourse occurred – whether Judge failed to apply appropriately the standard of proof and to take account of the gravity of the finding – whether finding open on the facts found at trial HUMAN RIGHTS – appellant challenged finding of sexual harassment occurring at a hotel and on a public street – consideration of the meaning of "workplace" in s 28B(6) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) DAMAGES – appeal against assessment of damages – whether Judge inappropriately had regard to punitive considerations in awarding damages
Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) s 46PO Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140 Sex and Age Discrimination Legislation Amendment Act 2011 (Cth) sch 1, items 54, 55, 69 Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 28A, 28B
Cases cited: Alcan (NT) Alumina Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Territory Revenue (NT) [2009] HCA 41; (2009) 239 CLR 27 Ashby v Slipper [2014] FCAFC 15 Backwell v AAA [1997] 1 VR 182 Bradshaw v McEwans Pty Ltd (1951) 217 ALR 1 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 Butera v Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) (1987) 164 CLR 180 Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; (2012) 293 ALR 257 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission [2007] FCAFC 132; (2007) 162 FCR 466 Flieger v New Brunswick [1993] 2 SCR 651 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Kuligowski v Metrobus [2004] HCA 34; (2004) 220 CLR 363 Morley v Australian Securities and Investments Commission [2010] NSWCA 331 Neat Holdings Pty Ltd v Karajan Holdings Pty Ltd (1992) 67 ALJR 170 R v McGuire [2013] QCA 290 R v Prasad [2009] SASC 131 Rookes v Barnard [1964] AC 1129 Sanders v Snell (1997) 73 FCR 569 Sanders v Snell [1998] HCA 64; (1998) 196 CLR 329 Seltsam Pty Ltd v McGuiness [2000] NSWCA 29 Trustees of the Property of Cummins (a bankrupt) v Cummins [2006] HCA 6; (2006) 227 CLR 278 Uren v John Fairfax & Sons Pty Ltd (1966) 117 CLR 118 Warren v Coombes (1979) 142 CLR 531
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate