![1
Case notes: Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust [2009] VSCA 224 (2
October 2009)
No 3848 of 2008
From August 1985 until the 25th
January, 2001, Ms Adrienne Turner was employed by the
Victorian Arts Centre Trust (the Arts Centre). She maintained that from the 20th
October,
1999, onwards, she was bullied in her role as Senior Account Manager/ Ticket Manager by
the Arts Centres Ticketing Services Manager, Mr. Dominic Holden, as well as being
subjected to psychosocial stressors. With respect to the former allegation, she referred to
instances where Mr. Holden untruthfully accused her of misconduct, of behaving violently
towards him and of enjoying unnecessary breaks from her work routine. Ms Turner
contended his emails to her were aggressive in nature. In addition, she pointed out that being
surrounded by fellow workers who were also adversely affected by Mr. Holdens actions was
also stressful. The imposition of an impractical, mandatory change in a meal break time was
mentioned as an example of the unilateral nature of his decision-making.
Ms Turner alleged that as a result of Mr. Holdens behaviour, her health seriously
deteriorated. Negligence on the part of the Arts Centre was cited as a causal factor in her
psychiatric condition which included major depressive, anxiety and panic disorders. In
particular, she criticised the Arts Centre for failing to provide her and her colleagues with a
safe environment in which to work as well as an awareness of the appropriate procedures
should bullying occur. She also claimed the Arts Centre was derelict in its duty to direct and
monitor the activities of Mr. Holden and his offsider, Jenny Lacey, as to appropriate
counselling to correct her perceived work deficiencies. The complaint extended to all levels
of management for their inadequate response to her concerns, and their failure to recognise
that strategies to deal with bullying and victimisation needed to be instigated. Eventually, Ms
Turner took action in negligence and breach of contract in the Victorian County Court
seeking damages for the psychiatric distress she had suffered. However, that application
failed.
Ms Turner approached the Court of Appeal to have the County Court judgment set aside and
the matter retried. The first ground of appeal related to a breach of the collateral evidence
rule by the trial judge. This involved evidence given concerning the resignation of an Arts
Centre staff member, Ms Ann OHanlon, who was, according to Ms Turner, another casualty
of Mr. Holdens bullying. The Arts Centre led other evidence implying that Ms OHanlons
departure was linked to a fraudulent claim for overtime exposed by Mr. Holden. The Court of
Appeal decided that this evidence was not collateral and was admissible, so the trial judge
had made the correct decision to allow it, although based incorrectly on the bias exception to
the collateral evidence rule. Specific comment was made that Ms Turners legal counsel
failed to direct the jury not to allow the evidence to reflect adversely on Ms OHanlon.
Next, the matter of whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury was considered.
During Ms Turners cross-examination, a statement was made that her complaint of bullying](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/turnervvictorianartscentretrust-180601112519/85/Turner-v-victorian-arts-centre-trust-1-320.jpg)
![2
to the Arts Centre was investigated and found to be not substantiated. While this comment
was held to be prejudicial, His Honours decision to direct the jury to ignore it rather than
discharging the jury was regarded by the Court of Appeal as a satisfactory resolution,
particularly since six days of the trial had already elapsed.
Ms Turners final objection centred around whether the trial judge should have permitted the
evidence of Mr. Jim Bailey, a human resources expert, to be heard. The judges of the Court
of Appeal backed the trial judges decision to exclude his evidence as Mr. Bailey lacked any
specialist qualifications that would enable him to be considered an expert in his field. Well-
reasoned conclusions could be arrived at by lay people, such as the jury, without his input as
the matter was one within the grasp of their everyday experience.
The appeal was dismissed as none of the grounds raised on appeal were made out.
This case may be viewed at: [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2009/224.html]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/turnervvictorianartscentretrust-180601112519/85/Turner-v-victorian-arts-centre-trust-2-320.jpg)
Turner v victorian arts centre trust
- 1. 1 Case notes: Turner v Victorian Arts Centre Trust [2009] VSCA 224 (2 October 2009) No 3848 of 2008 From August 1985 until the 25th January, 2001, Ms Adrienne Turner was employed by the Victorian Arts Centre Trust (the Arts Centre). She maintained that from the 20th October, 1999, onwards, she was bullied in her role as Senior Account Manager/ Ticket Manager by the Arts Centres Ticketing Services Manager, Mr. Dominic Holden, as well as being subjected to psychosocial stressors. With respect to the former allegation, she referred to instances where Mr. Holden untruthfully accused her of misconduct, of behaving violently towards him and of enjoying unnecessary breaks from her work routine. Ms Turner contended his emails to her were aggressive in nature. In addition, she pointed out that being surrounded by fellow workers who were also adversely affected by Mr. Holdens actions was also stressful. The imposition of an impractical, mandatory change in a meal break time was mentioned as an example of the unilateral nature of his decision-making. Ms Turner alleged that as a result of Mr. Holdens behaviour, her health seriously deteriorated. Negligence on the part of the Arts Centre was cited as a causal factor in her psychiatric condition which included major depressive, anxiety and panic disorders. In particular, she criticised the Arts Centre for failing to provide her and her colleagues with a safe environment in which to work as well as an awareness of the appropriate procedures should bullying occur. She also claimed the Arts Centre was derelict in its duty to direct and monitor the activities of Mr. Holden and his offsider, Jenny Lacey, as to appropriate counselling to correct her perceived work deficiencies. The complaint extended to all levels of management for their inadequate response to her concerns, and their failure to recognise that strategies to deal with bullying and victimisation needed to be instigated. Eventually, Ms Turner took action in negligence and breach of contract in the Victorian County Court seeking damages for the psychiatric distress she had suffered. However, that application failed. Ms Turner approached the Court of Appeal to have the County Court judgment set aside and the matter retried. The first ground of appeal related to a breach of the collateral evidence rule by the trial judge. This involved evidence given concerning the resignation of an Arts Centre staff member, Ms Ann OHanlon, who was, according to Ms Turner, another casualty of Mr. Holdens bullying. The Arts Centre led other evidence implying that Ms OHanlons departure was linked to a fraudulent claim for overtime exposed by Mr. Holden. The Court of Appeal decided that this evidence was not collateral and was admissible, so the trial judge had made the correct decision to allow it, although based incorrectly on the bias exception to the collateral evidence rule. Specific comment was made that Ms Turners legal counsel failed to direct the jury not to allow the evidence to reflect adversely on Ms OHanlon. Next, the matter of whether the trial judge should have discharged the jury was considered. During Ms Turners cross-examination, a statement was made that her complaint of bullying
- 2. 2 to the Arts Centre was investigated and found to be not substantiated. While this comment was held to be prejudicial, His Honours decision to direct the jury to ignore it rather than discharging the jury was regarded by the Court of Appeal as a satisfactory resolution, particularly since six days of the trial had already elapsed. Ms Turners final objection centred around whether the trial judge should have permitted the evidence of Mr. Jim Bailey, a human resources expert, to be heard. The judges of the Court of Appeal backed the trial judges decision to exclude his evidence as Mr. Bailey lacked any specialist qualifications that would enable him to be considered an expert in his field. Well- reasoned conclusions could be arrived at by lay people, such as the jury, without his input as the matter was one within the grasp of their everyday experience. The appeal was dismissed as none of the grounds raised on appeal were made out. This case may be viewed at: [http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VSCA/2009/224.html]