Ouch
A law graduate’s bid to sue his employers took an unexpected turn as the judge delivered a sharp rebuke over his conduct during the case.
The graduate, who was then employed by Australia’s Department of Employment and Workplace Relations, alleged that three of his supervisors engaged in bullying behaviour, such as unfair reprimands and unreasonable criticism.
Although an Australian employment tribunal dismissed the allegations, it is the law grad’s behaviour during the proceedings that truly grabs attention.
Despite holding a law degree, the graduate — who we have chosen not to name — faced stinging criticism for being “exceptionally difficult to deal with”.
According to the tribunal, the self-representing grad failed to follow basic instructions, including mistakenly submitting a statement of claim in place of a witness statement. This occurred despite “numerous attempts” by the tribunal to explain, “both verbally and in writing”, what a witness statement is, along with even providing an example.
Instead, he produced a document with “inaccurate and misleading commentary” about email exchanges with his supervisors — claims that didn’t hold up when the actual emails were reviewed.
It wasn’t just his evidence that raised eyebrows. The grad’s conduct throughout the hearing was less-than lawyerly, according to the ruling.
He referred to one party as a “moron who had no credibility” and said of another that he “didn’t care whether she is dead or alive”. He also dismissed cross-examination questions as “fucking ridiculous” and accused the other side’s lawyer of trying to mislead the tribunal during cross examination — an accusation that was found to be baseless and improper.
At one point, according to the ruling, the law graduate even scheduled a medical appointment during the hearing, notifying the tribunal only the day before.
The tribunal pulled no punches in its assessment of the grad’s behaviour during the proceedings, labelling him “belligerent, rude, [and] obstructive”.
Ultimately, it concluded that the grad was “not a credible witness”, opting instead to rely on evidence from the department’s witnesses. With his own actions undermining his case, the tribunal dismissed his claims.
(
(
