Man challenges suspension over ‘playful, mutual sexualised’ WhatsApps with junior female colleague

High Court Reporters

A senior employee at a healthcare manufacturers who was suspended over alleged sexual harassment of a junior female colleague has got a High Court injunction halting disciplinary proceedings.

A judge was told the allegations arose out of what had been a long-standing private WhatsApp relationship featuring what the male employee says was "playful, mutual and sexualised banter."

Conor Power SC, for the man, was on Friday granted leave to serve the proceedings on the company and an injunction restraining a disciplinary process from continuing.

A disciplinary hearing had been set for next Tuesday and the man has been suspended on pay since April after he was found guilty by another inquiry of sexual harassment, which he strongly denies.

The company is also injuncted from publishing or acting on any findings it has made so far and the case can come back in a week, the judge said.

The application was made with only the man's side represented (ex parte).

In an affidavit, the man said in his relationship with the woman, they engaged in off-colour, mutual sexualised innuendo outside work systems.

The investigation into alleged harassment found that up to February 2025, the exchanges were consensual and reciprocal, he said.

The complaints the woman made against him related to a period between February 17th and 25th last. It was only just before 11pm on February 24th that her first "note of complaint" came, he said.

He said he reacted to it with "an overzealous concern for the complainant's welfare and to understand what happened."

After that, he did not engage in any sexualised banter and the investigation report found it was so, he said.

While he did contact after the February 24th message, and also tried to do so through another friend, it was not sexualised and he apologised for having done so.

He said her text had "come out of the blue" and was out of step with their previous communications.

Her fiancé also rang him a few days later in a very threatening way after he came across the texts, he said.

Among the findings of the investigation into his behaviour, a claim that following a briefing about a work trip to London he made a verbal comment about "we'll go to the pub, stumble home and.....see what happens" was not upheld.

The inquiry upheld her claim that a message on February 17, referencing "aloe vera", was a shift away from innuendo to explicit direct instruction.

It also found against him in relation to a late night link to pornographic content. He said she sent "playful messages" in return.

He describes as wholly irrational the inquiry's conclusion that communications between February 17 and 21 crossed the line and were inappropriate.

This conclusion did not square with another finding that her feelings of discomfort were not clearly articulated by her until February 24th he said.

A complaint by her that he had "cornered her" at the door of a research and development lab at work and blocked her was not upheld. It did not make any finding against him in relation to a fake LinkedIn profile and blocked contact number, he said.

She also claimed he made "alleged possessive remarks" about not walking alone but the inquiry said the only corroborated communication was of a general community safety alert. This was not upheld either.

Notwithstanding those findings, the investigation outcome recharacterised all the overall communications from mid-February as "unwelcome", he said.

"The finding was specific that I had engaged in unwelcome sexual harassment", he said.

He also said the investigation failed to consider her sexualised banter including a link she sent to pornographic content on Reddit.

She also sent an explicit wordplay pun "Cocktite 425".

He claims the inquiry was conducted in breach of the company's own policies, were flawed, gave rise to irrational findings and were in breach of his constitutional right to fair procedures.

The company was called on to reopen the inquiry but refused to do so and the man brought High Court proceedings.