Lawyer’s life ‘ruined’

Solicitor files appeal against sexual harassment ruling

A LAWYER who was found to have sexually harassed his female employee with “relentless” attempts “to woo” her, in a way described as “particularly sinister” by a judge, says the decision has ruined his life and triggered him to put his career on hold.

Owen Hughes, principal solicitor at Northern NSW law firm, Beesley and Hughes, filed an appeal in the Federal Court in Brisbane last Wednesday, asking the decision finding the claims of sexual harassment proven be set aside.

Mr Hughes is also appealing the order demanding he pay his former employee, Catherine Mia Hill, 54, $170,000, arguing the damages were “manifestly excessive”.

Mr Hughes was ordered to pay the sum to Ms Hill, who now works remotely from Canberra for a Gold Coast firm, in a May 24 decision by Federal Circuit Court judge Sal Vasta.

The damages includes $120,000 for general damages and $50,000 in aggravated damages, because he found that Mr Hughes attempted to stop Ms Hill making a complaint of sexual harassment.

Mr Hughes’ appeal document states Judge Vasta was wrong to find his actions amounted to a sexual advance and sexual harassment.

Ms Hill, who worked with Mr Hughes during her first job in the legal industry, sued him claiming he sexually harassed her by pressuring her to “be in a relationship with him” if she wanted to keep her job.

She told the court during a hearing in Brisbane in March that she was “intimidated or threatened” by Mr Hughes and believed he wanted a sexual relationship and for her to live with him when she worked for him between May 2015 and June 2016 – when she quit.

She said Mr Hughes was in her bedroom, dressed in boxer shorts, when she went to go to bed during a trip. Ms Hill claimed she made it clear she wasn’t interested in a relationship, but Mr Hughes denied sexually harassing Ms Hill, and argues he didn’t reduce her work-hours after she rejected his advances.

Mr Hughes conceded sending her non-work related emails, including one titled: “Expressing my feelings is not harassment”.

In the emails he told her: “If you and I were together we would change the world” and “we are dynamite together”.

“I am a wild and passionate man. so you will be justly rewarded,” he told her in an email.

“I want to be your lover and I do not know how to be friends with you.”

Judge Vasta found that Mr Hughes’ emails “speak for themselves but it is the intertwining of” Ms Hill’s job and Mr Hughes’ desire for a sexual relationship “that is particularly sinister”.

“Whilst I accept there was nothing crude, vulgar or lascivious about the harassment, nevertheless it was obviously unwarranted, persistent and threatening,” Judge Vasta said.

Speaking outside court Mr Hughes said he would fight the findings.

“I maintain I did not sexually harass Ms Hill and that the quantity of damages is manifestly excessive. The decision at first instance has ruined my life and I have not renewed my practising certificate as a lawyer for now,” he said.

No date has been set for hearing the appeal.