Harmers left holding the bill in Slipper costs case

Harmers Workplace Lawyers will write off James Ashby’s million-dollar legal bill after the Federal Court rejected the former staffer’s bid to have the Commonwealth pay his costs in the sexual harassment case against Peter Slipper.

Leanne Mezrani • 12 February 2015 • SME Law

The application, which sought payment of legal costs from Mr Slipper and the Commonwealth, was rejected on Monday 9 February.

You’re out of free articles for this month

Username or Email

Password Forgot password?

Keep me signed in on this device.

First Name

Last Name

Mobile

Organisation Type

By becoming a member, I agree to receive information and promotional messages from Lawyers Weekly. I can opt out of these communications at any time. For more information, please visit our Privacy Statement.

Need help signing up? Visit the Help Centre.

In a statement to Lawyers Weekly, Harmers said the firm would continue to cover Mr Ashby’s costs, which in June last year had surpassed $1 million.

The firm also stated that it was considering options for further appeal against the Federal Court decision.

Harmers has been bankrolling Mr Ashby since mid-2012, when he accused Mr Slipper of sending sexually explicit text messages and making unwelcome sexual advances.

The Commonwealth withdrew from the sexual harassment case in October 2012 after settling Mr Ashby’s claim by payment of $50,000.

VIEW ALL

Two months later, Federal Court judge Justice Steven Rares threw out Mr Ashby’s lawsuit, claiming it was a politically-motivated abuse of process.

Justice Rares also took aim at the conduct of Harmers chairman Michael Harmer, criticising the lawyer for including “scandalous and irrelevant” allegations in the statement of claim.

On appeal, the Federal Court found, by a vote of two to one, that Mr Ashby’s lawsuit was not an abuse of process and should proceed. The court also sided with Mr Harmer, stating that adverse findings in relation to his professional conduct should not have been made.

Mr Slipper was ordered to pay the costs of the application for leave to appeal and the costs of the appeal.

However, the order was later set aside by the full Federal Court, which stated that costs could not be awarded under the Fair Work Act.

Mr Ashby appealed that decision, attempting to have his costs paid by the Commonwealth’s ongoing indemnity agreement with Mr Slipper.

However, Monday’s judgment rejected Mr Ashby’s motion that the Commonwealth had a “vital and continuing interest” in pursuing the matter.

“It is not an instance where Slipper was simply a ‘straw man’ to pursue or protect the interests of the Commonwealth,” according to the judgment, which also stated that the sexual harassment allegations had not been tested.

Mr Ashby dropped the sexual harassment suit just weeks before the matter was due to return to court on 30 June 2014.

Harmers has maintained, however, that the Commonwealth should not have continued to pay for Mr Slipper’s defence, raising the former speaker’s conviction for fraudulently using travel entitlements.

“This is hardly fair, and such practices by the Commonwealth actively discourage people taking action against serious and genuine cases of injustice,” the firm stated.

Absurdiness Brown Friday, 13 February 2015

That is was dropped was a bad sign, and possibly revealing.

0
Glenn Jones Friday, 13 February 2015

You can't really accuse Harmer of being in an ivory tower. Indeed, probably the opposite, as Justice Rares observed. In my opinion, Ashby was just a pawn in the machinations of others. He fell for the nods and winks of politicians trying to do each other in, although as a political staffer he should have known better. Harmer got caught up in the whole '15 minutes of fame' thing, although arguable he also should have known better. The parliament seems to be made up of lawyers and union officials. What happened to the real people? And no, Clive Palmer, Ricky Muir and Jackie Lambie don't qualify as 'real people'!I have no sympathy for any of the participants in this farce.

0
chris barker Thursday, 12 February 2015

court judgments not the product of 'personal predisposition'. You have got to be kidding. It only reinforces the publics view that lawyers are in little ivory towers completely out of touch with reality.

0
Philip Walker Thursday, 12 February 2015

Your journalist ought do a lot better than describing the Federal Court as having found by a "vote of two to one" and as having "sided" with Mr Harmer. Such terminology does little to reinforce to the public that court judgements are the product of facts, law and reason rather than personal predisposition. Your choice of language is particularly regrettable in a case which has always had such strong political overtones. A journal bearing the title "Lawyers Weekly" should set its standards higher..

0