Back in August Kristy Fraser-Kirk courted publicity for her claim against David Jones and its former CEO Mark McInnes, filing an outlandish and attention-seeking $37 million lawsuit and calling a press conference to publicise her grievances.
But now she is complaining about all the media attention, claiming through her lawyers that ‘it has induced a psychiatric illness’, and that she now regularly ‘checks under her car’. For what we are not told.
This appears to be in support of yet another preposterous claim, that women who claim to have been previously harassed by McInnes should not have to be named so that their allegations can be investigated. From the judge’s comments last week, this part of the action looks like it will be struck out, as justice requires.
6 thoughts on “Be careful what you wish for #2”
So is she going to sue the entire country in a sort of reverse class action suit?
This woman is nuts.
Without commenting on the particulars of this case, it appears that anybody can say anything about anybody in a statement of claim, even if it is flagrantly untrue or defamatory, and have it reported all over the media, without any risk of getting sued for defamation. Presumably, this hasn’t happened much in the past because lawyers have a duty to the court not to put things in statements of claim which they know are porkies and deigned to put pressure on the other side to cave in and settle big.
Now I’m not saying KFK’s lawyers have done this on this occasion but it’s not hard to imagine unscrupulous lawyers doing exactly this as a hardball tactic.
She certainly knows how to keep the story near the front page!
Let’s be pragmatic here. If this highly publicised ambit claim – pretty outrageous in its quantum – ensures that there are fewer creeps in positions of power over young women then it’s a Good Thing. Over my lifetime I’ve seen careers and happiness destroyed by men who think they’ve a right to grope more junior staff.
And that she exhibits psychiatric symptoms due to stress generated more by her lawyer’s than the defendant’s behaviour (and how do you know that is in fact the case anyway?) does not mean that those symptoms aren’t real, devastating and deserving of our sympathy.
Let’s wait & see if it goes to court before passing too much judgment on any of the parties.
> she now regularly ‘checks under her car’. For what we are not told.
To check that the brakes haven’t been tampered with.
Far from helping any causes related to sexual harassment, Kristy will only hurt the reputation of anyone filing legitimate cases of real concern.
Her sensitive and highly strung reaction to McInnes is out of proportion to the charges she has made against him. This is only made more obvious by her out of proportion reaction to the media attention (what did she think would happen with such a huge lawsuit!)
Taken in context, I see nothing wrong with comparing a caramel kiss dessert with a f** in the mouth..I mean, it is lewd and not something I’d say myself, but it’s not the first time I’ve heard such a thing said about a scrumptious dessert.
It does not make for a sexual harassment case.
Hugging in the company of others is not sexual harassment, especially when she was not the only member of the company to receive a hug by McInnes.
Trying to make the case into ‘a stand against sexual harassment for all women’ is an embarrassment to the cause and to any women who have ever suffered real harassment, violence and unwelcome behaviour.