Kristy Fraser-Kirk and her $37 million lawsuit

Fraser-Kirk alleges sexual harrasment against the former CEO of David Jones,  Mark McInnes.

Her claim is ridiculously high and disproportionate. Why should the shareholders of David Jones suffer for the behaviour of a person who was dismissed from the company? Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

It is probably no coincidence that Fraser-Kirk is a publicist – she is milking this.

But her frivolous lawsuit sets a new benchmark for over-the-top claims that makes a mockery of our law.

I have a simple proposal. Where a claimant receives a payment of less than one tenth of the amount they seek, the Court should order that the claimant pay to consolidated revenue an amount of no less than one tenth of the amount they sought. That would spell an end to frivolous and vexatious litigation.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

55 Responses to Kristy Fraser-Kirk and her $37 million lawsuit

  1. JC says:

    She was clearly harassed by the idiot.

    However the firm took action and therefore she should receive nothing. Not one cent and the firm ought to be compensated for legal fees by her.

  2. Sid Vicious says:

    Take it easy on young Kristy. She is not making a mockery of our law. The buffoons on the bench don’t need any help when making a burlesque of the law. Why, just a short time ago we had one judge who said dead people were in the habit of taking his wheels for a spin. This judge bypassed the traditional law school and purchased his credentials from one of those USA diploma mills.

    Kristy deserves her chance to play the clown.

  3. ken n says:

    “This judge bypassed the traditional law school and purchased his credentials from one of those USA diploma mills.”
    Not true, if you are talking about Einfeld. He claimed a higher degree from a non-accredited school but his law degree from Sydney was genuine.
    Not sure why this is relevant…

  4. ken n says:

    Seems to me to be a bad tactical decision by the lawyers. They were close to a settlement but they decided to up the stakes.
    This strengthens DJ’s negotiating position.

  5. Rococo Liberal says:

    As far as I iknow a case I was involved in resulted in the highest payout for a personal injury claim in Australian history. The plaintiff was the daughter of a wealthy businessman. He had molested her over many years. She had a videotape to prove it. The matter was so secret that only the QCs and the leading solicitors on both sides knew the identities of the parties.

    She got $40m in an out of court settlement.

    Given the level of harrassment she suffered I find it difficult to believe that this DJs bimbo will receive more than a kick up the arse from the court for wasting their time.

  6. C.L. says:

    Notwithstanding that this shake-down will likely go nowhere (indeed that it is an obvious ambit claim designed to bring forth a large settlement), Sid makes a good point. Beaks are increasingly batty in all jurisdictions, the recent trend whereby they imperiously overrule the plain and obvious wishes of the deceased in contested will cases binging one of the more egregious examples. This is, of course, legalised theft.

  7. Dandy Warhol says:

    She’s rolling the dice and seeing what happens. I have no problem with that.

    What she is also doing is guaranteeing that the matter goes to court. That means appearances by DJs’ directors and senior managers. She wants to show them up in front of the public.

    It should never have got to this stage. No matter the result, I suspect DJs’ prestige will take a beating. This is very poor management on DJs’ part.

  8. JC says:


    IF you read the transcript of her complaint, which I think was on the OZ website the harassment was real, it was concerted and lasted an awfully long time. There was also a few text messages from him telling her her career would improve.

    The transcript was quite disturbing actually.

    I’m just not sure if there are losses she suffered and if the insurance company or the shareholders are at fault.

    Perhaps there ought to be real hard cases against the people that do this rather than the shareholder or the board, as these people are not responsible.

  9. C.L. says:

    The harrassment was real and it was serious.

  10. JC says:

    In fact I really don’t get sexual harassment cases and why suddenly the firm is responsible or rather the shareholders. Why are they a party to a case?

    If a person murders someone in a work environment the firm is not immedaitely at fault if there is not direct connection.

    A woman is harasses at the workplace and she hits the jackpot like this bimbo is trying to do.

  11. C.L. says:

    Isn’t this just an ambit stunt? Ask for $35 mill, get $10 mill – that sort of thing?

  12. JC says:

    The harrassment was real and it was serious.

    Yep I agree. My jaw dropped reading that shit. It’s truly shocking. That fucker is a horror story. If I were her dad I would have kicked the living shit out of him without remorse.

    However he gets off scott free taking $7 million going away bonus and the Shareholders are the ones that cop it.

    That just isn’t right in my mind. He ought to be the one getting hit, not the firm.

  13. Sid Vicious says:

    ken n, do some fishing mate and tell me what you find.

  14. C.L. says:

    The idiot checked into a ‘sex addiction’ clinic. Same one as Tiger Woods, according to reports. I can’t stand these modern lotharios who can’t man up and say they love skirt above all things – so there – and instead claim to be ‘sick.’ Give me the old Rat Packers over these doucheballs any day.

  15. Adrien says:

    Whatever happened to individual responsibility?

    Yeah. Gee whatever happened to it? Well maybe stuff like Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886) has something to do with it.


  16. Adrien says:

    That would spell an end to frivolous and vexatious litigation.

    It’s not frivilous at all. She’s perfectly entitled to sue for damages if an sociopathological fuckwit boss makes life hell for her. The amount might be out of all proportion but that’s a culture in which the winner takes it all and self-interest is an obligation.

    The commercial corporation is a device that acquires rights and eschews liabilities. Part of the reason, nay, the principle reason it exists is to shield its agents from being held accountable. But it never always goes one way. This is the price Pay for hiring incorrigible arseholes. Lap it up.

  17. JC says:

    Modern Lotharios? This one was first rate douchebag by the sounds of those messages. As I said, it was really disturbing.

    She should have whacked him one, resigned and then taken him to court.

  18. Peter Patton says:

    FFS. She worked in the FASHION industry. If she didn’t know that means “Game On” she was a twit. She should get a job at a Coles checkout.

  19. JC says:

    It’s not frivilous at all. She’s perfectly entitled to sue for damages if an sociopathological fuckwit boss makes life hell for her.

    Why the firm and not him though. He walked away with $7 million for being a scumbag.

    A firm is aggregated capital owned by shareholders. Explain why they are the primary responsibility in a harassment case but not in say a work place murder.

    Harassment compensation is just another example of the legal system used to redistribute money, which of course was instigated by femanazis.

    I want to emphasize that I’m not taking away the fact there does exist real harassment like it appears to be the case here. I want to also emphasize though that we have not read the text messages in reply from her.

    If a woman has a case she should sue the transgressor.

  20. Peter Patton says:

    Is she pressing criminal charges?

  21. JC says:

    Patton, STFU and tread the transcript of the complaint before you shot you mouth off.

    He was a serious douche by immediate appearance.

    No woman should be subjected to that sort of shit any time.

  22. Peter Patton says:

    What legal standards are you using? Where do they come from. YOUR views on how men and women should court are completely irrelevant.

  23. JC says:

    And where was her dad? Shouldn’t he have manned up a little and had a talk with him?

  24. JC says:


    Read the transcript and stop shooting your mouth off when you have no idea.

    What legal standards? Ummmm. how about the standards of common decent behavior.

    My views? Not just mine but I would say nearly every person in the country would say that fucker was a lowlife if the transcript is accurate.

    Yea. My standards of common decency.

  25. Infidel Tiger says:

    She need Jackie Chiles on her case.

    Calling a press conference mamde her look like a total dick.

  26. JC says:

    Download this. It really disturbing.

    However we don’t really know what she said.

  27. Peter Patton says:

    Again. Completely and utterly irrelevant. We are discussing LAW.

  28. JC says:

    Patton, you dipshit, you were not discussing the law when you had this to say:

    FFS. She worked in the FASHION industry. If she didn’t know that means “Game On” she was a twit. She should get a job at a Coles checkout.

    Where’s the law that says that sorta thing is tolerated? Ummm.

  29. Rococo Liberal says:

    The harassment wan’t serious or real until a court says it is.

  30. Rococo Liberal says:

    oops wasn’t, not wan’t.

  31. daddy dave says:

    Let’s keep in mind that the facts are in dispute.

  32. JC says:

    Let’s keep in mind that the facts are in dispute.

    Are they? Honest question.


    The harassment wan’t serious or real until a court says it is.

    Not really. I can think what i want to think.

  33. Peter Patton says:


    What law is involved here? Criminal or tort?

  34. pete m says:

    A company owes a duty of care to their employees to reasonably ensure they are not injured.

    Sexual harassment leading to a psychiatric injury is quite common.

    The point where the company may be liable is not strict liability – as in, if it happened too bad you pay.

    If they (as in any person in authority) had prior knowledge he had harassed anyone previously, or if she complained and they did ntohing to stop further harassment, or if following it, their investigation was bad and they didn’t take action – then they can be liable.

    The company is also vicariously liable for ctions of management, even if unreasonable, but not outside the scope of their job. Threatening transfers could be within scope but not in exchange for XXX.

    ok read thru the statement of claim – quite the piece of art.

    They say DJ’s knew of his past behaviour with 2-3 incidents, and then her 1st one, but did nothing.

    DJ’s are screwed.

    I note she’s asked for other employees to come forward. Smart move as she needs more support of high up management knowledge.

    re damages – punitive damages are sought to ensure behaviour is not repeated. Seems the system which the US plaintiffs use to gain most damages has landed on our shores. Usually aust courts are loath to order punitive damages and are generally small in any event.

    RC – the largest pi plaintiff claim was the drunk actor – he won $65mil at trial, reduced by 25%, and then by 75% on appeal. Still, his damages were $65mil before liability took a chop.

    nice work 🙂

  35. daddy dave says:

    Are they? Honest question


    “I offered my resignation to David Jones because I had behaved in a manner unbecoming of a chief executive officer — I made mistakes and I have acknowledged those mistakes,” he said. “Having said that, I reject many of the recent specific allegations and, legally, I have no alternative other than to vigorously contest them and I will.”

  36. Peter Patton says:

    pete m

    Is the Civil Liabilty Act relevant at all?

  37. Peter Patton says:

    pete m

    How can we access the statement of claim? It sounds like Darryl Kerrigan in The Castle. 😉

  38. jtfsoon says:

    Greenfield, you typical misogynistic old queen, your views on male-female courtship are completely irrelevant.

  39. . says:

    “FFS. She worked in the FASHION industry. If she didn’t know that means “Game On” she was a twit. She should get a job at a Coles checkout.”

    Is this part of the Uniform Civil Procedure?

  40. . says:

    Wasn’t she engaged?

    He’s a homewrecker. He doesn’t belong in court, he belongs on Springer.

    I don’t know why they want to screw the shareholders out of 35% of one year’s profit.

  41. BirdLab says:

    A few points:

    1) I understand that she advised DJ’s management of McInnes’ behaviour, and they did nothing.

    2) If it takes a large amount of money and bad publicity for them to get it through their heads that this behaviour is unacceptable in a modern working environment, then so be it. They should have acted to enforce their own internal policies in the first place.

    3) Good on her.

  42. Jezery says:

    I’m with BirdLab…Good on her!

    Her extremely large claim for damages (which I doubt anyone, especially her, thinks she will actually get) has meant that this has got far greater media coverage than your average sexual harassment claim.

    Maybe I’m assigning motives to her that she doesn’t have, but I suspect this is more about making sure large companies treat harassment claims a lot more seriously in future.

  43. Pingback: Australia’s litigious culture at Catallaxy Files

  44. Boris says:

    What he did was wrong but it doesn’t fit my definition of ‘serious’. If she gets a large payout I will consider it injustice and the harrassment law gone mad. This is typical in the US but do we want this in Australia? Absolutely agree with the title post on this.

    People are afraid to look at opposite sex at work for fear of sexual harrassment allegations.

  45. entropy says:

    This is about maximising her general compensation in an out of court settlement. Her ludicrous damages claim will never eventuate. And she has said nothing about giving her compensation to charity. (And what is she getting compensation for? Did she lose her job? No.) And the perp has lost his job and is unemployable in the future. Fraser-Kirk is busy making sure she is too.

  46. pete m says:


    Unsure of the nsw version, but it doesn’t apply to the TPA claims, which they have made here. nor equal opportunity one. It applies to no-workers comp claims.

    I’m interested in how they overcame the restrictions in the nsw workers comp laws. Might dig further.

    the SOC is avail from JC’s link earlier thread.

    I don’t see the point about ehr past complaint. the girl is quite the looker and no doubt has copped unwarranted attention in the past – colour me unsurprised!

    The fact is a company like DJ’s paying out even $300K in confidence to her to avoid litigation would not change their culture, which allowed this to occur. I’m kind of glad she’s fighting them in the public arena as well – that takes a hell of a lot more guts than you think. DJ’s needs a culture shock like this.

    too many males out there who act shockingly – there are females too – and employers need to take it seriously.

    good luck to her

  47. Boris says:

    “too many males out there who act shockingly…”

    Do they? What’s ‘too many’?

    Ones upon a time it was typical for a boss to bed his female subordinates in exchange for preferential treatment at work. This is now illegal and sexual harrassment laws are designed to prevent this. I think by and large these laws work. Of course, there are always some idiots who think they can get away with it, but I don’t think this is widespread at all. People are genuinely afraid to be a target of a legal action, and try to not to look at opposite sex at all.

  48. Boris says:

    I feel sad not just that the claim is out of proportion, but that people here seem to be totally overwhelmed by political correctness.


    How much damage can a text message cause? Put a number on it! In my book 1K for each incident would be too much…

    Her main claim against DJ is that they took no action. But obviously they did. They forced their high-prfile CEO to resign. If that is not an action, what is?

  49. BirdLab says:

    “And what is she getting compensation for?”

    Punitive damages.

  50. daddy dave says:

    I’m with Boris on this.
    Assuming all her claims are true, this is a minor event of harrassment. There’s absolutely no point in punishing the company, its shareholders (including many retired Australians) and its employees. Nothing will change as a result of this claim. Those big corporations already have anti-harrassment policies and procedures in place. When it’s the CEO who’s breaking company policy, it’s kinda hard to do anything about it.

    Maybe I’m assigning motives to her that she doesn’t have,

    I believe you are, Jezera, who turned up one time only to praise the litigant here.

    …but I suspect this is more about making sure large companies treat harassment claims a lot more seriously in future.

    So now she’s an activist with a heart of gold? Are you somehow personally involved in the case, Jezery?This whole thing is calculated to damage the entire company, not just her. That includes thousands of employees and shareholders (such as your relatives).

  51. BirdLab says:

    Up to the parties and/or the courts.

  52. Boris says:

    ‘”And what is she getting compensation for?”

    Punitive damages.’

    That’s part of it but not all.

    “Up to the parties and/or the courts.”

    Legally yes. Morally and socially, no.

  53. Peter Harvey says:

    Any man has the right to ask any woman out.
    If conventional communication is not clear, then Christy should have to write three (3), or at least one (1) letter, formally declining his advances.

    In the end, she did not write this letter, but instead jumped directly into a 37 million dollar law suit.

    McInnes himself and David Jones have taken appropriate action.
    Thus, Christy should NOT be awarded any money at all for this law suit.
    Christy is simply trying to milk the system, and set herself up for an easy retirement.

    A man has the right to ask a woman out.
    A woman has the right to decline.
    To make money out of this is simply wrong…

  54. Lyn Mackin says:

    Go Girl!!!
    I’m 54. Spent years of an unwanted smack on the bum etc etc. I have enormous respect for you standing up for ALL of us who have suffered from this rubbish.
    By the Way, I wouldn’t put up with it now, but now it too late.
    GO GET ‘EM!!

Comments are closed.