Rugg v Ryan
| Rugg v Ryan | |
|---|---|
| Court | Federal Court of Australia |
| Full case name | Sally Rugg v The Commonwealth Of Australia As Represented By The Department Of Finance & Anor |
| Citation(s) | VID 44 of 2023 |
| Court membership | |
| Judge sitting | Justice Mortimer |
| Keywords | |


Background
The case concerns a legal battle between Kooyong MP Monique Ryan and her chief of staff, Sally Rugg. Rugg is suing Ryan over what she claims are unreasonable work expectations and various allegedly hostile acts in the workplace. Rugg's legal team argues that she should be able to return to work while suing her boss. Both parties have sought to avoid a lengthy court trial and have spent weeks attempting to strike a pre-trial settlement. However, the Commonwealth government, which is also a party to the trial, has not agreed to repeated offers to settle. The Commonwealth is accused of breaching the Fair Work Act by allowing a culture of excessive work. Rugg and Ryan may yet reach a settlement separate from the Commonwealth, an option that has been explored by Ryan's lawyers and which could avert a trial. The case has attracted political attention, with the Coalition suggesting that Ryan "may have defrauded the Commonwealth by asking Rugg to take five weeks' pay in exchange for quietly resigning in an "off the books" proposal". However, evidence tendered to the Federal Court shows that Ryan outlined the proposal with departmental approval.[1]
Reference list
- ↑ Knott, Matthew; Sakkal, Paul (5 March 2023). "Rugg, Ryan wanted to settle 'unreasonable hours' case". The Age. Retrieved 20 April 2023.
External links
| This article related to Australian law is a stub. You can help EverybodyWiki by expanding it. |
This article "Rugg v Ryan" is from Wikipedia. The list of its authors can be seen in its historical and/or the page Edithistory:Rugg v Ryan. Articles copied from Draft Namespace on Wikipedia could be seen on the Draft Namespace of Wikipedia and not main one.
| This page exists already on Wikipedia. |
