Jump to content
Can't remember your login details? Read more... ×
LogicprObe

Kristy Fraser-Kirk

Vote!  

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Heroine or Gold digger?

    • Heroine
      6
    • Gold Digger
      40


Recommended Posts

The lawyers and hangers-on have profited nicely even though it barely made it to court.

 

She's apparently only walking away with $500K or a tad over, the rest has gone to the parasites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lawyers and hangers-on have profited nicely even though it barely made it to court.

 

She's apparently only walking away with $500K or a tad over, the rest has gone to the parasites.

 

parasite, succubus... same diff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't she publicize it and take the 37 mil?

 

Taking more money would be more hurtful from just winning a court case surely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't she publicize it and take the 37 mil?

 

Taking more money would be more hurtful from just winning a court case surely?

 

she didnt win a court case tho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't she publicize it and take the 37 mil?

 

Taking more money would be more hurtful from just winning a court case surely?

She would have never got it, Juries don't make the amount in Aus like they do in the US and judges have a little more sense than 12 nobodies too stupid to get out of jury duty. :p

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why didn't she publicize it and take the 37 mil?

 

Taking more money would be more hurtful from just winning a court case surely?

If it went to a jury, she would have lost and got nothing.

 

DJ's just wanted it out of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

and I fucking KNEW she would withdraw her charity donation... I actually made a bet with my husband over it.

She didn't withdraw her donation, she never got what she said she would donate.

 

I don't care who she's friends with... this was nothing more than a money grab. Honestly, if this was about the sexual harrassment suit she would NOT have settled for anything less than what she was claiming and she WOULD have followed through with her promise of a donation.

Kind of like all those battered wives and husbands who never go to the police - if it was real they'd push charges until it stuck?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, I reckon she'd have been pushing to make 10% of that and gone through a whole lot of pain to get it.

 

And, the parasites would have taken the bulk of it, leaving her with not much more than she got anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual harassment is bad. And so, it's an uncomfortable feeling to be in a sense 'blaming the victim', when so many other genuine victims have suffered such a fate.

 

The scuttlebutt around town was that the defence had witnesses lined up to say they'd seen her flirting with him, that the judge felt the $37M claim was almost contemptuous of his Court, that DJ's were to seen to have acted very correctly in terminating the CEO and offering her reasonable compensation at the outset, etc. So perhaps (?) she didn't have a strong case, and once her Legal team had 'covered its costs' they advised her to settle for a sum that's relatively trivial in terms of what she might have otherwise have earned in a few years anyway.

 

But who can know whether the scuttlebutt has any truth to it...?

 

Aha! Juggs knows her, so he can no doubt set us straight.

Edited by Virtuoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sexual harassment is bad. And so, it's an uncomfortable feeling to be in a sense 'criticising the victim'.

 

The scuttlebutt has it that the defence had witnesses lined up to say they'd seen her flirting with him, that the judge felt the $37M claim was almost contemptuous of his Court, that DJ's were to seen to have acted very correctly in terminating the CEO and offering her reasonable compensation at the outset, etc.

 

So, without being "in the know", it sounds to me that maybe she didn't have a strong case, and once her Legal team had 'covered its costs' then advised her to settle for a sum that's way less than what she would have earned in the next 5 years.

 

As Juggs knows her he can no doubt set us straight.

my reading of the news articles suggested to me that she may have been well intentioned in championing the cause, but was pretty naive and then overwhelmed by the potential reality of a protracted court case

 

having spent over i think 4 years in the federal court taking on the racgp over a matter of qualifications, i know the feeling when the opposing counsel suggests you can settle in your favour out of court

 

the pisser is that the costs you incur don't get awarded against the other side even though they are in effect conceding they were wrong, and they don't actually get punished in any effective way; so all i got was satisfaction, a sizeable legal bill, and the right to get paid fairly under medicare, and not have to undertake bullshit "further training" to satisfy the idiot bureaucracy of the racgp... revenue positive in the long run, but a stressful half decade of ongoing legal shenanigans i had to live through, and it wasn't fun

 

$ to a chief exec unless outrageous (and $37m is outrageous to the point of ridicule) is not a punishment

 

and even if he knows her, i doubt juggs can unravel the complexity of legal action and motivations because i expect the plaintiff has very conflicting thoughts on the whole deal herself, and is doubtless just pleased that it's over

 

 

having had a weird experience as an employee where i was morally and scientifically correct, but having been threatened with legal action for libel if i spoke up, i am well aware that being a whistleblower is not a happy job - i wimped out, but i appreciate the moral outrage knowing someone is doing the wrong thing and being threatened with professional destruction should you call their bluff... the difference was i wouldn't have got a settlement, just a reputation as a troublemaker, and probably unemployed without compensation.. it takes chutzpah to tackle someone with huge financial resources who refuses to acknowledge being incorrect

Edited by scruffy1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, i wouldn't find anything wrong with it if she hadn't promised to give the money to charity in the first place. What exactly did the guy do anyways? I mean 36 million, that's a fuckload of money. Most rape victims wouldn't get that amount of compensation

If the fine was standard regardless of the offender and company involved then how seriously do you think the truly rich people and companies would take the laws?

 

*EDIT* And once again I find the poll lacking.

 

Put a tick in the "how the hell should I know?" box.

 

There are several choices here. These are the things that could be true or false:

- There was sexual harrassment.

- There was evidence of sexual harrassment.

- The woman was motivated for moral reasons.

- The woman was motivated by dramatic reasons.

- The woman was motivated by greed.

- David Jones thought it would lose the case.

- David Jones was trying to protect it's image.

...

all of which could be true or false without contradicting one another, and there's probably a half dozen more things that I'd want to know...

Edited by tantryl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it takes chutzpah to tackle someone with huge financial resources who refuses to acknowledge being incorrect

This.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One fact I can add to the post-mortem: I knew the Chairman of DJs, Bob Savage, about 7 years ago, and always found him to be a very honourable man with high personal integrity.

Edited by Virtuoso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A mate of mine met his missus when they both worked at DJ's.

There was definite sexual harassment going on there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think any of the blokes that worked there fancied women.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't think any of the blokes that worked there fancied women.

This. My friend works for them and he certainly doesn't!

 

On a more serious note, a few points:

 

1. The case would not have gone before a jury. In NSW, you only have jury trials for criminal offences and defamation suits. This was heard in the Federal Court so it would have been heard by a judge alone.

 

2. The $37 million figure was ridiculous; I wouldn't be surprised if the judge thought it was bordering on contemptuous. Pretty much every employment lawyer I've spoken with about the case agreed that it was a ridiculous claim. Even rape victims - who suffer far more emotional damage than what Fraser-Kirk appears to be suffering - do not get that much. If the case proceeded further and she won, then she'd probably have received less than what she received now. The most I remember being awarded for a sexual harassment case is around $200,000. Judges in Australia simply aren't as profligate with damages awards as they are in America. I have a question for you hlass - the courts in the US award multi-million figures all the time. Has this reduced the incidence of sexual harassment? Or has it merely resulted in a litigious culture where more sexual harassment claims come before the courts all the time? There are perfectly sound justifications for being conservative with damages awards. High awards result in higher insurance premiums and open the floodgates for baseless legal claims. When a case is in the news where somebody gets $100 million, immediately everybody wants to sue. The principle of damages is compensation. Damages should reflect the harm actually suffered. $37 million does not reflect the gravity of the wrong or the harm suffered by Fraser-Kirk. I don't think that anyone who knows anything about this area of law seriously thought she'd be able to get that much.

 

3. In our system of litigation, the loser pays the winner's party-party costs. These are the costs that are reasonably necessary to achieve justice; usually they're about 60% of the total costs incurred by the winning party. If Fraser-Kirk lost, she'd have to pay DJ's costs. These would have been considerable given the complexity of the case. Furthermore, if you unreasonably refuse a reasonable offer of settlement, proceed to trial and lose or get a less favourable outcome, then the other party may apply from indemnity costs from the date of the offer. Indemnity costs are close to 100% of the party's costs. Thus, there are strong incentives to settle. DJs previously offered Fraser-Kirk a settlement. This settlement sum, as I understand it, was rather generous. If the case went to trial and Fraser-Kirk lost or got awarded less, there's a possibility she would have had to pay all of DJ's legal costs in the matter. Thus, it's unsurprising that she settled.

 

4. No court has decided on whether McInnes was actually guilty of sexual harassment. A settlement is not an admission of liability. This result does not mean that McInnes is guilty. By the same token, it does not mean that Fraser-Kirk was a liar. The facts simply have been buried and shall not be discussed by either party. Often, parties settle not because they think that they actually committed the wrong, but because they just want the issue to go away. It's unreasonable to speculate on what actually happened since we weren't there. All that is certain is that both parties balanced the competing considerations and decided not to proceed with this claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the settlement effectively means we'll never actually know for sure what went on that day.

 

Kinda a bit :/ on pulling out of the charity bid, but benefit of the doubt and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both have something to answer. She comes out looking a goldigger and he's definitely guilty of being a sleaze.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think both have something to answer. She comes out looking a goldigger and he's definitely guilty of being a sleaze.

 

There are no definites either way, just personal assumptions.

 

It's a real pity it didn't go to the full $37mil. That is an amount that would really make companies think before continuing to promote and turn a blind eye to the behaviour of scumbags like McInnes.

 

Scumbags? You do realise nothing has been proven at all, right? A settlement is not an admission of guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's every chance he was a decent bloke until rising to power.

 

That's the problem when someone has a multi-million salary package - anything becomes within their reach, and when they don't get it they just resort to dirty tactics.

 

As for admission of guilt - it reminds me of the Michael Jackson case where he paid out the $8 million. You don't fork over a huge amount of money, even if it's a single-digit percentage of your annual income, if you have nothing to hide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's every chance he was a decent bloke until rising to power.

 

That's the problem when someone has a multi-million salary package - anything becomes within their reach, and when they don't get it they just resort to dirty tactics.

 

As for admission of guilt - it reminds me of the Michael Jackson case where he paid out the $8 million. You don't fork over a huge amount of money, even if it's a single-digit percentage of your annual income, if you have nothing to hide.

You don't?

 

I'm sure everyone who believes that a speeding ticket is unfair, has gone to court to contest every one, rather than just paying the $200 to make it go away?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

$200 isn't a huge figure, and a speeding ticket is hardly a parallel in this case.

Edited by Rybags

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As for admission of guilt - it reminds me of the Michael Jackson case where he paid out the $8 million. You don't fork over a huge amount of money, even if it's a single-digit percentage of your annual income, if you have nothing to hide.

 

Vast over-simplification, based on nothing except your own suspicions. Has it occured to you that some just want it over and done with so they can get on with their lives, and not be caught in long, expensive, draining court battles?

Edited by zaraki kenpachi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From his perspective it wouldn't necessarily have been an expensive court battle especially if he won.

 

Plus don't forget, he's now out of a multi-million dollar job, and his chances of ever landing such a position again are SFA.

 

Like I said, if he was innocent, he would have fought tooth and nail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×