A former clerk who wants to appeal her failed sexual harassment claim against a retired magistrate has lost her bid to delay her challenge for two years.
Rebecca Ramstrom was ordered to pay $25,000 into court as security for the legal costs of her former magistrate boss before she could challenge the Equal Opportunity Tribunal ruling made last December.
But she applied to South Australia's Supreme Court asking for a two-year extension so she can save the money by setting aside $200 a week.
Ms Ramstrom, 33, claimed Joseph Baldino, now 67, repeatedly made salacious, disgusting comments, touched her breasts while pretending to look at her necklace and slapped her bottom with a file, causing her to vomit.
But the tribunal concluded that Ms Ramstrom had twisted some of Mr Baldino's comments, adding sexual overtones, fabricated claims and was not credible in some respects.
The tribunal said a reasonable person could not have anticipated that Ms Ramstrom, who worked for Mr Baldino between 2008 and 2010, might have been offended, humiliated or intimated by invitations to his hotel suite for a drink.
Justice Kevin Nicholson on Tuesday refused Ms Ramstrom's application for a two-year extension to the time an appeal could be set down for hearing to enable her to save up the $25,000.
She had proposed cutbacks for herself and her husband, including cancelling their $200 monthly Foxtel subscription and reducing the $120 to $140 a week they spent on alcohol.
Her husband also had agreed to cut down on his heavy smoking, which cost $170 or more a week, she said.
Justice Nicholson said there would be an unfairness to Mr Baldino to simply allow the matter to be held in abeyance for another two years.
The claims had been serious and distressing and Mr Baldino had indicated a desire to re-enter public life, perhaps as a lawyer or an an auxiliary magistrate.
The judge also dismissed Mr Baldino's application to have the appeal dismissed.
Ms Ramstrom had six months in which to lodge an appeal, meaning it will lapse on about July 23.
The judge said she should be given the opportunity to review her position to see what further steps were open to her to come up with the $25,000 by then.
Share
