Thread: The Full Federal Court has today delivered judgment in the case of Hughes v Hill, an appeal from an award of damages against a solicitor who sexually harassed his employee. Perram J's lead judgment is truly remarkable (in a good way) http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2020/126.html

Last year, Judge Vasta awarded Ms Hill $120,000 in general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, after finding Mr Hughes had persistently and relentlessly sexually harassed her while she worked for him.

This included a barrage of emails where he expressed his sexual and romantic desires, entering her hotel room on a work trip and a threat that she would be fired if she did not engage in a relationship with him: 'you might be sorry you turned me down romantically.'

Mr Hughes had also acted for Ms Hill in a mediation in relation to her divorce, and used this information against her in the proceedings. Today, Perram J described this as 'a gross breach of his professional obligations as a solicitor.'

Mr Hughes appealed, on three grounds: 1) the evidence did not support harassment (his conduct, in his ACTUAL SUBMISSIONS, was described as 'like Mr Darcy in Pride and Prejudice', 3) damages were 'manifestly excessive' and 3) there was no basis for aggravated damages.

Perram J wastes no time. At [8]: "The trial judge thought that this conduct by the Appellant during the trial was ‘despicable’ ... The trial judge’s language was appropriate. The conduct of the Appellant was despicable. It was also in every sense improper.'"

Perram held the appeal was a continuation of harassment: 'This appeal is devoid of merit & I would infer was pursued for the same purpose. Some of the submissions were, in my opinion, insulting. It should not have been brought & in my opinion, should be emphatically dismissed'

Perram held that the facts evidently demonstrated that harassment had occurred, and found that the appellant's submissions to the contrary were 'nonsensical'.

'Consequently, I reject the submission of SC for the Appellant that these were the actions of a Mr Darcy. The facts of this case are about as far from a Jane Austen novel as it is possible to be.'

Perram then endorsed Vasta's decision on general damages: 'What is the ruin of a person’s quality of life worth? I flatly reject the Appellant’s contention that it was not worth $120,000 and the allied submission that such a finding was not open on the evidence.'

Perram then makes two interesting points. The appellant had said his status as a solicitor was not relevant in awarding damages. Perram said: wrong.

'Society affords to the members of the legal profession privileges...The use of this status for tawdry personal ends is an abuse of it. In this case, the trial judge was right to measure in general damages the power differential that lay between the Appellant and the Respondent'

Perram also confirms that reference to the aspirational objectives of the Sex Discrimination Act, when considering damages, is legitimate.

Finally, he considered the award of exemplary damages. The appellant had sought an assurance that Ms Hill would not sue him, and said, if she did, 'I always fight the good fight'. Vasta said this was a threat. Perram agreed.

'It was an attempt to deter the Respondent from seeking protection under the SDA. It was bullying. It was dishonourable. It was a serious matter.' Perram also criticised appellant's conduct: 'To say that this conduct during the trial is reprehensible would be an understatement.'

Collier J and Reeves J both concurred. Reeves added: ' agree entirely with his Honour’s reasons and particularly his condemnation of the appalling conduct of the appellant throughout this matter.'

In sum: A) A robust defence of the Richardson v Oracle 'increase' in general damages for harassment; B) A reminder that lawyers harassing is particularly reprehensible given their conduct obligations; C) never, ever, run a 'Mr Darcy' defence; D) Perram for HCA.