| ⚖️ |
Sexual harassment case breakdown · 21 May 2026 |
|
|
$125,000 in damages. What the court looked for.
|
|
Wood v Kendall [2026] FedCFamC2G 889. A two-week trial, a director, and a judgment that lays out what the court looked for, and could not find
|
|
Total damages awarded
$125,238.43
|
|
|
|
The case
What happened
|
|
The trial
A 20-year-old on a two-week employment trial, referred through a disability employment service. On day five, alone with the director, he engaged her in a series of escalating, sexualised interactions. She left and never returned to work.
|
| |
|
The complaint
She lodged with the AHRC three months later. The director requested repeated extensions, went quiet for months, then failed to show up to a scheduled mediation.
|
| |
|
The result
Neither the director nor the company defended the proceedings. The court found sexual harassment established, and found the company vicariously liable, meaning legally responsible for the director's conduct because it happened in connection with his role at the company. Total damages awarded: $125,238.43.
|
|
|
Employers have one way to avoid vicarious liability: showing they took all reasonable steps to prevent the conduct. Here, the court found no evidence the company had taken any steps at all, let alone all reasonable ones.
|
|
|
The numbers
How the damages broke down
|
|
$100,000
General damages
Pain, suffering, loss of enjoyment of life
|
|
|
$15,000
Aggravated damages
For how the complaint itself was handled
|
|
|
$10,238
Economic loss
Unpaid wages plus lost income
|
|
|
Zero
Preventive steps in evidence
No policy, training or induction shown
|
|
|
|
The takeaway
What the judgment points to
Nothing here guarantees an outcome in any future case. But this is what the court looked for, and didn't find.
|
|
01 No evidence was put before the court of any risk assessment, policy, training or preventive steps addressing sexual harassment.
|
| |
|
02 The applicant's evidence was that she was not shown or told about any workplace policies during her induction.
|
| |
|
03 No reporting channel existed independent of the person the complaint would have been about.
|
| |
|
04 With no evidence of preventive steps, the vicarious liability defence under s 106(2) was not available to the employer.
|
| |
|
05 Delays and non-attendance during the AHRC and mediation process were factors in the aggravated damages awarded.
|
|
|
Who this is for
WHS leaders, HR leaders and boards
|
|
The judgment did not turn only on what the director did. It turned on what the employer could show it had done to prevent it: no policy communicated to the applicant, no training, and no reporting channel independent of the person a complaint would concern.
|
| |
|
For WHS and HR leaders: the judgment's test was whether "all reasonable steps" had been taken to prevent this conduct. The evidence that mattered was a policy communicated at induction, training, and a reporting channel that does not run through the person a complaint might concern.
|
| |
|
For boards and executives: vicarious liability under s 106 applied to a small employer with no meaningful system in place. The court noted that what counts as reasonable depends on the size of the organisation, but the size of the organisation is not, on its own, a defence where no reasonable steps were taken at all.
|
|
|
Full judgment
Wood v Kendall [2026] FedCFamC2G 889, Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
|
|
|
|
Post-PAW: Key Changes, Real Cases, and What Compliance Looks Like Now
PAW closes 2 October 2026. The regulator's expectations don't.
|
|
Psychosocial hazard obligations are now enforceable in every Australian jurisdiction, and NSW's Codes of Practice became a legally enforceable compliance benchmark from 1 July 2026.
|
|
|
You'll walk away able to
|
|
✓ See what regulators are testing for, drawn from recent enforcement actions.
|
| |
|
✓ Apply a practical checklist for an audit-ready psychosocial risk system post-PAW.
|
| |
|
✓ Leave with a clear plan for closing the compliance gap PAW's closure leaves behind.
|
|
|
Presented by
Ian Fagan, Director & Co-Founder of Skodel, and Sam McKenzie, ex-WorkSafe Victoria, Director of Psychosocial Compliance at Skodel.
|
|
|
Skodel · Psychosocial risk compliance made practical
|
.png)
.png)
.png)