Evidence ‘not necessary’, UTAS argue in application to receive university files in Rathjen civil suit

Lawyers for UTAS are fighting against an application ordering the sharing of university files as evidence in the alleged sexual misconduct case against a former vice-chancellor. Find out why>

Supreme Court of Tasmania, Hobart. Picture: Chris Kidd

Lawyers for the University of Tasmania (UTAS) have opposed an application for university files to be made available in the case of alleged sexual misconduct by former vice-chancellor Professor Peter Rathjen.

As exclusively reported by the Mercury in late August, Prof Rathjen is facing civil action in Hobart’s Supreme Court of Tasmania, where an ex-colleague is seeking damages after allegedly being groped by the former leader at multiple UTAS functions in 2016 and 2017.

The former staff member also claims UTAS is vicariously liable for assaults allegedly perpetrated by the former vice-chancellor.

UTAS previously denied in court documents any of Prof Rathjen’s alleged conduct had taken place in the scope of his employment, and said the plaintiff’s statement of claim had been lodged after the three-year statute of limitations period had expired.

In denying it had breached the plaintiff’s duty of care, the university strongly rejected allegations it had not provided a safe workplace for staff.

Documents provided to the Mercury by the Supreme Court did not include any defences filed by Prof Rathjen.

Professor Peter Rathjen is the former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. Picture: SUPPLIED

The former employee’s lawyer Audrey Mills appeared in the Hobart Supreme Court before Associate Justice Michael Daly on Thursday to apply for an order that the UTAS make apparent all discovery documents requested.

The court heard this relates to documents, including the University Council’s notes and minutes about discussions of complaints of sexual harassment and bullying.

Ms Mills stated the ex-staffer had made the request on April 11 this year and had still not received any files.

However, UTAS’ defence argued that the “broad, sweeping swathes of evidence required” would be a huge expenditure of time, energy, and money on the University’s part for evidence that is ‘not necessary’.

“Legal staff had said ‌the task of gathering and reviewing of these documents could run at a total of 170 hours of work and a total of $15,000 for UTAS,” UTAS’ lawyer said.

Acting general counsel and executive director of audit and risk for UTAS Susannah Windsor was called to give evidence, stating that making the discovery will likely require input from ‘20 department staff and officers or university counsel members present and past’.

“I was able to identify divisions and some individuals required to be contacted to comply with those requirements for the discovery and made a list and significant people needed to be contacted to perform this,” she said.

Ms Mills countered that the law firm Gilchrist Connell, who is currently litigating for UTAS covered by their insurance policy, could complete this discovery.

The discovery may also be relevant to an application currently before the Supreme Court for an extension of time submitted by the former employee.

Ms Mills will supply a refined table of evidence requested in the coming week, before the matter is heard again on October 15.