Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Worsley-Pine v Kathleen Lumley College [2001] FCA 818
SEXUAL HARASSMENT – whether Residential College is liable for alleged sexual harassment by college residents against applicant DISCRIMINATION – whether the Residential College discriminated against the applicant because of her gender in the provision of accommodation WORDS AND PHRASES – "Educational Institution" Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ss 3(1), 23, 28A, 94, 105, 106 DEBORAH WORSLEY-PINE v KATHLEEN LUMLEY COLLEGE INCORPORATED NO S 52 OF 2000 O'LOUGHLIN J ADELAIDE 29 JUNE 2001
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 52 OF 2000
BETWEEN: DEBORAH WORSLEY-PINE
APPLICANT
AND: KATHLEEN LUMLEY COLLEGE INC
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE OF ORDER: 29 JUNE 2001
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: The application be dismissed with costs. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY S 52 of 2000
BETWEEN: DEBORAH WORSLEY-PINE
APPLICANT
AND: KATHLEEN LUMLEY COLLEGE INC
RESPONDENT
JUDGE: O'LOUGHLIN J
DATE: 29 JUNE 2001
PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 On 11 May 2000 the applicant in these proceedings, Ms Deborah Worsley-Pine, an unrepresented litigant, lodged an application in this Court alleging that the respondent, Kathleen Lumley College Inc ("the College"), had unlawfully discriminated against her. She has also alleged that the College is vicariously responsible for the conduct of a Mr Michael Robins. Ms Worsley-Pine has alleged that she was the victim of sexual harassment by Mr Robins at the time when they were both residents in the College. The College, which is affiliated with the Adelaide University, is a residential College for post-graduate students. Ms Worsley-Pine was a resident of the College from September 1996 to April 1997. Mr Robins was a resident in the College in 1997 when the sexual harassment is said to have occurred. 2 In her application to the Court, Ms Worsley-Pine indicated that she had instituted proceedings pursuant to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) ("the Act"). She then listed in attachment "A" to her application several provisions of the Act that, so she claimed, would be relevant to this application. One of the provisions of the Act to which Ms Worsley-Pine referred in her attachment was par 23(1)(c) of the Act. That provisions is as follows: "(1)` It is unlawful for a person, whether as principal or agent, to discriminate against another person on the ground of the other person's sex, marital status, pregnancy or potential pregnancy: (a) … (b) in the terms or conditions on which accommodation is offered to the other person; or (c) by deferring the other person's application for accommodation or according to the other person a lower order of precedence in any list of applicants for that accommodation."
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