EOFY Sale · Save up to $750 off your legals · Ends 30 June

Claim offer
Selected cases

Federal Court of Australia · [2026] FCA 628

Cleary v Qube Ports

A Federal Court employment case about sexual harassment allegations, contractor engagement, adverse action and an early strike-out application.

Federal Court of Australia21 May 2026

Plain-English explainers, not legal advice. Check the linked official source before you rely on a specific section, and get advice for your situation.

Get legal help

Start here

Quick read

  • Sexual harassment and adverse action disputes can turn on the basic pleading story: who the worker was, what engagement existed, what complaint was made, what action the...
  • A Federal Court employment case about sexual harassment allegations, contractor engagement, adverse action and an early strike-out application.

Use this to check

  • Worker status matters where sexual harassment and Fair Work claims overlap.
  • Email access, role availability and contractor engagement decisions can be pleaded as adverse action.
  • A strike-out application can narrow a case, but it is not the same as winning the final dispute.

Decision snapshot

  1. 1

    What happened

    • Ms Cleary performed work for Qube Ports, a logistics company, from around January 2017.
    • She alleged that she was later engaged as an independent contractor and that she was sexually harassed by a Qube Ports employee after a dinner with colleagues on 13 May 2023.
    • She alleged that she reported the conduct, stopped providing services, and was prepared to consider further work depending on the investigation.
    • Qube Ports later disabled her email access and, in August 2023, told her there were no contractor or part-time roles available.
  2. 2

    What the court had to decide

    • The Federal Court had to decide whether parts of Ms Cleary's statement of claim were ambiguous, failed to disclose a reasonable cause of action, or sought relief beyond the Court's power under section 545 of the Fair Work Act.
    • The challenged pleading included allegations about worker status, sexual harassment, termination or refusal to engage, and requested orders about Qube Ports' harassment policies and practices.
  3. 3

    What the court decided

    • The Court struck out paragraph 92 of the statement of claim, which alleged termination of a contract for services, and gave Ms Cleary leave to replead.
    • Qube Ports' application was otherwise dismissed.
    • The result left the proceeding alive, while forcing one part of the adverse action case to be pleaded with clearer material facts.

Practical impact

Practical read

  • Sexual harassment and adverse action disputes can turn on the basic pleading story: who the worker was, what engagement existed, what complaint was made, what action the business took, and why.
  • Businesses should keep investigation, contractor engagement and return-to-work communications tight enough to withstand early court scrutiny.

Useful next steps

  • Worker status matters where sexual harassment and Fair Work claims overlap.
  • Email access, role availability and contractor engagement decisions can be pleaded as adverse action.
  • A strike-out application can narrow a case, but it is not the same as winning the final dispute.
  • Harassment investigations should keep communications, evidence access and future work discussions carefully documented.
  • Record whether a person is an employee, contractor, prospective contractor or prospective employee at each relevant time.

Practical read

This case has a familiar workplace shape. A person works with the business over a long period, the exact legal status of the relationship becomes contested, a serious harassment allegation is made, and later decisions about email access, contractor work and future engagement become part of an adverse action claim.

The Court did not decide whether the harassment or adverse action allegations were ultimately true. This was an early pleading fight. Even so, it is useful for businesses because it shows what the Court expects a claim to explain: the relevant working relationship, the alleged protected rights, the action said to be adverse, and the link between them.

For operators, the lesson is practical. If someone reports sexual harassment or says they cannot keep working because of what happened, do not let the response drift through informal emails and unclear engagement status. Decide who owns the investigation, what access is kept open or closed, what role options are being discussed, and what record explains each decision.

Checks to run

Key points

  • Record whether a person is an employee, contractor, prospective contractor or prospective employee at each relevant time.
  • Keep sexual harassment complaints, investigation steps and role communications in one controlled file.
  • Avoid shutting off email, evidence access or work channels without recording the operational reason.
  • Check adverse action risk before telling a complainant there is no further work or no role available.
  • Review harassment policies and actual complaint handling together, not as separate paper exercises.

Key takeaways

  • Worker status matters where sexual harassment and Fair Work claims overlap.
  • Email access, role availability and contractor engagement decisions can be pleaded as adverse action.
  • A strike-out application can narrow a case, but it is not the same as winning the final dispute.
  • Harassment investigations should keep communications, evidence access and future work discussions carefully documented.

Related topics

Employment & WorkplaceDiscrimination & AccessibilityContracts & Commercial

How Sprintlaw can help

Employment ContractContractor AgreementRegulatory Compliance