runner,

Ms Doane is a female - she gets a guernsey in the judgment.

(From the judgment:)

"...Mr Ashby acted in combination with Ms Doane and Mr Brough when commencing the proceedings in order to advance the interests of the LNP and Mr Brough...."

"...Mr Ashby and Ms Doane set out to use the proceedings as part of their means to enhance or promote their prospects of advancement or preferment by the LNP, including by using Mr Brough to assist them in doing so..."

"...As Mr Ashby and Ms Doane agreed in their texts of 30 March 2012 what they were doing "will tip the govt to Mal's [Brough] and the LNP's advantage"..."

It's not a case of gender wars.

Another fine (runner) theory bites the dust.

Next....

"That was for the case against the commonwealth. Far removed from slipper."

Completely stupid comment. The Commonwealth was and is Slipper's employer; it is common to lodge claims against 2 defendants such as the employer and an agent of the employer.

As noted the Commonwealth paid Ashby $50,000, a substantial sum for this sort of complaint. That is, prima facie, an admission of guilt which Rares J. ignored.

During the action between Ashby and the Commonwealth Roxon commented continually, a disgraceful and tawdry display by an A-G who has no respect for the process. Again Rares J. made no reference to this but focused on Brough's political based interference.

As I said above there is no doubt Ashby has fouled his own case; and when will members of the Coalition ever learn about dealing with these types?

Having said that and after rereading the case I think there is an arguable basis for appealing on the basis that Rares J. relied too heavily on the political context to dismiss the substantive claim of sexual harrassment.

While it is clear that Ashby was creating a political context it is also clear that Slipper was acting in a completely unacceptable manner.

Spindoc, questions raised by your pertinent points: If Julia Gillard "did nothing wrong" as she claims, why did she have to tender her resignation from Slater and Gordon? Why could Styant-Brown no longer hide what he knew of the AWU scandal and Gillard's actions?

As Hedley Thomas of The Australian observed, " Gillard's failure to open a file in relation to her legal work to help incorporate the association meant that for three years nobody else in the firm knew anything about it. Further, Gillard did not consult any of the other partners about her work that led to the incorporation of the association, notwithstanding the expertise of her colleagues in the area. ...
... there was a failure to inform the WA commissioner for corporate affairs, the public servant in Perth who was responsible in 1992 for ensuring people seeking to register entities were not attempting to sow the seeds of a scam. The commissioner never knew what Gillard and her clients (Wilson and Blewitt) always knew - that the association was a union slush fund."

Cohenite,

The Commonwealth payout to Ashby was made as a result of legal advice regarding possible risk and likely escalating costs for the taxpayer and was declared NOT to be an admission of guilt as is typical in such cases.

Ashby now has to pay Slipper’s legal costs as well and these will be far in excess of $50,000.

How could Ashby claim harassment if the texts were made BEFORE he was Slipper’s employee and the fact that he asked Slipper for a job while the texts were being sent. Ashby’s own texts were equally offensive.

Ashby was working as "a double agent" for the political benefit of Brough and to further his own interests.

Why would he risk a $150,000 pa job - just a couple of months old - for a likely payment of about $40,000 unless he was given assurances of future employment by somebody else?

If Slipper was behaving in an unacceptable manner, he was also doing so while under the protection and the defence of the Liberal Party for several years beforehand.

The only thing that changed was suddenly Brough was looking for a safe seat and Slipper's was nominated by the Liberal Executive so Slipper decided to take the Speaker's job.

Like "Utegate", this was a political set-up from the start.

I see that Abbott is claiming "no specific knowledge of the matter" until he saw it in the papers. Sounds like the "kids overboard" defence to me.

When you consider that Pine, Brough, Bishop and others had actively been directly consulting with Mr Ashby for some weeks prior and that the LNP was underwriting Mr Ashby's considerable legal costs that makes Abbott either a liar or just incompetent.

Now add the unlikely "time-stamp" excuse and given his track record and looseness with the truth over the years, maybe it's a bit of both.

cohenite,

I don't think it's possible to read it both ways. The political context of the "set up" is so overwhelming and the claims of sexual harassment so integral to the dupe that if one follows the machinations through, it beggars belief that Ashby was the "victim" as he claimed to be.

The judgment illuminates Ashby's involvement with Slipper prior to his appointment.

"From mid 2011 Mr Ashby began providing voluntary assistance to Mr Slipper in managing the media.

From mid-October 2011 until April 2012, Mr Ashby fostered beliefs in Mr Slipper that they were friends
Mr Ashby supported him politically, had his interests at heart and opposed Brough....

Mr Ashby frankly discussed his homosexuality with him and engaged in light hearted banter that occasionally contained sexual comments;"

One of Slipper's first points of claim was that Ashby had taken no steps to address the so-called harassment.

"(i) no steps of any kind had been taken by Ashby to raise or resolve any dispute with Slipper prior to the dissemination of the allegations...."

The text messages from Ashby to his friends display no hint of distress from harassment.

From the judgment:

"What is singular about all of the text message exchanges that Mr Ashby had with friends in the period prior to the commencement of these proceedings is the lack of complaint by him of feeling sexually harassed. And his friend's texts had no words of comfort for Mr Ashby as a victim of some traumatic experience of that kind....Rather they read as if the participants were discussing the political ramifications of Mr Ashby revealing material that was sexually and politically embarrassing and that would compromise Mr Slipper and his position as speaker if it appeared in the public domain."