Warning: This is a real life example and contains language or content that may offend or cause distress.
STU v JKL (Qld) Pty Ltd [2016] QCAT 505
- Type of outcome
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal decision
- Year
2016
- Contravention
Sexual harassment
- Outcome
Complaint upheld; Compensation of $328,316.10 was awarded
Summary
A young woman was sexually harassed when she woke to find an older man naked in her bedroom. He touched her upper thigh and groin, and tried to remover her underpants. She told him to leave and broke down crying.
The woman's employer had arranged for her to share the work-provided accommodation with the man. They each had their own room, and the woman had moved in the night before the sexual harassment.
The woman was unable to take up her new job as planned, and she suffered post-traumatic stress disorder and depressive symptoms. She was unable to work from the incident (which happened on 1 December 2012) until March 2015.
The tribunal found that the personal injury to the woman caused by the sexual assault on her was severe and prolonged.
Issues the tribunal considered and decided included whether the sexual harassment occurred in the course of the man's employment, the credibility of the woman and the extent to which the sexual harassment caused her injuries, and how damages should be assessed.
The tribunal awarded compensation of $328,316.10 made up of:
- General dam ages (personal injury): $70,000
- Interest on general damages: $8,260
- Past financial loss (gross of income tax, and after deducting worker’s compensation payments received): $16,594.42
- Interest on past financial loss: $33,575.75
- Past loss of superannuation: $21,059.06
- Interest on past loss of superannuation: $4,348.70
- Future economic loss: $25,000
- Special damages: $396.40
- Interest on special damages: $81.77
- Future medical and associated costs: $3,000
From the total of $328,316.10, the amount paid in settlement of a personal injuries claim was deducted, leaving an award of $313,316.10.
Note: An appeal was made to the QCAT Appeal Tribunal and then the Court of Appeal on the issue of liability. The original decision was upheld.