Have any questions? Call us: 
A legal assistant in her early thirties launched two different sexual harassment proceedings against a law firm that prided itself on its governance and compliance and five years later, started a third.
She alleged that between early December 2015 and April 2016 she was subjected to repeated sexual harassment by an employed solicitor of the firm.
The alleged conduct included unwelcome comments, inappropriate remarks of a sexual nature, and behaviour that she said created a humiliating and hostile workplace.
Hamde Bakhit was employed by Hartley Healy in Brisbane.
The incidents were said to occur in ordinary working hours, not at after-hours social events or off-site functions, which made the experience harder to avoid and more corrosive to her daily work.
By September 2016 she obtained a workers’ compensation medical certificate from Dr Michael Edwards, who identified a preliminary diagnosis of psychological injury consistent with workplace sexual harassment.
She initially pursued a WorkCover claim but within weeks, she withdrew it saying that the process itself was causing her significant distress.
In November 2016 she lodged a detailed complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. A conciliation conference conducted by phone in April 2017 achieved a settlement that was subsequently documented under which the firm paid Bakhit $30,000 as compensation for “hurt, humiliation or distress”.
Her termination was re-characterised as a resignation, she received a statement of service and an expression of regret, and she withdrew her discrimination complaint.
The deed contained a broad release and discharge of “all claims” connected with the allegations and her employment, subject to a carve-out for “any claim for statutory benefits under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act or for unpaid superannuation”.
In late 2021, Bakhit commenced Supreme Court proceedings against the firm for negligence in failing to provide a safe system of work free from sexual harassment.
The same allegations were also advanced as a breach of contract claim and one for for “statutory benefits” under the workers’ compensation legislation which she contended fell within the carve-out in the settlement deed.
On their face, the negligence and contract claims were legally recognisable as orthodox injury compensation claims.
However, their viability depended entirely on whether they were barred under the terms of the May 2017 deed of release.
Bakhit contended that because the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act tightly controls when and how a worker can sue for damages, those damages should be treated as a statutory benefit.
This ambitious contention was roundly rejected. Statutory benefits were confined – in the view of Justice Tom Sullivan – to no-fault weekly income payments, medical expenses, and lump sums for permanent impairment.
Damages for negligence remained a common law remedy, merely regulated and limited by statute. Construing them as a statutory benefit would stretch the language beyond recognition and would also undermine the commercial certainty of personal injury settlements.
In the judge’s view, all new claims were squarely within the scope of those for which the release had already been given. He thus dismissed the proceedings.
He also held that the bar-to-proceedings clause was engaged, exposing Bakhit to a costs order on an indemnity basis.
Bakhit v Hartley Healy Pty Ltd [2025] QSC 352 Sullivan J, 23 December 2025
Categories: office worker injury