Login
Federal Court judge slams principal for ‘relentless’ sexual harassment
A principal solicitor, labelled a “lonely” and “despicable” man by the Federal Court, has been slammed for sexually harassing his employee over a long period of time.
Naomi Neilson
The Federal Court of Australia has upheld a decision to charge principal Owen Hughes $170,000 for sexually harassing his female employee after he engaged in “relentless” conduct, which included emails, threats and regular untoward invitations.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
In his appeal to the court, Mr Hughes argued the award was manifestly excessive and that there was no basis for aggravated damages. His last point, incredulously read out by Justice Nye Perram, was the evidence did not support the conclusion the behaviour was not sexual harassment because he was “like Mr [Fitzwilliam] Darcy in Pride and Prejudice”.
“The facts of this case are as far from a Jane Austen novel as it is possible to be,” said Justice Perram, adding there was no reason to suggest his conduct was wanted.
The Federal Court detailed a series of unwanted advances from Mr Hughes, including a “bombardment” of emails that began two months after the employee – who Lawyers Weekly has opted not to name – started at the firm. In the emails, Mr Hughes proposed a romantic relationship and professed his love, which was shut down by the employee.
The court said the emails were “mawkish and altogether inappropriate”. In one email, Mr Hughes told the employee she was not good enough at her job “since they were not lovers”. An hour later, he sent an email with the subject line “expressing my feelings is not harassment” and asked that she not take legal action against him.
In 2015, Mr Hughes and the employee travelled to Sydney for work, where they stayed with his brother. While the employee was out of her bedroom, Mr Hughes entered and lay in wait for her on the mattress, wearing only his underwear. He then requested that she hug him before he would agree to leave the room.
The court heard on many occasions he would physically prevent her from leaving her office until she agreed to hug him first. This conduct was labelled by the trial judge as “despicable”, with Justice Perram agreeing it was “in every sense improper”.
In the judgement, the Federal Court pointed to the obvious power imbalance between Mr Hughes and the employee. The employee was his paralegal, new to the profession and unable to move away from the area due to sharing two children with their father.
In October 2015, the employee directly confronted him to ask that he stop sending her emails and told him the conduct was sexual harassment. The court noted the power imbalance, which would have made it “very difficult” for the employee to complain.
“A decent person would not have exploited this power imbalance. As the events in the case show, and as the trial judge correctly apprehended, [Mr Hughes] is not a decent person,” read the Federal Court appeal documents.
