Appeal Court dashes Moodie's final petition

18:14, Nov 07 2012
Rob Moodie
ROB MOODIE: Lost his case in the Employment Court and sought to appeal the ruling.

Cross-dressing lawyer Rob Moodie has failed to overturn a court decision that found he ruined a former colleague's career and derailed her bid to adopt a child.

A damning Employment Court decision issued in June labelled Dr Moodie's treatment of former employee Elizabeth Strachan as "calculated, vindictive and vengeful".

Dr Moodie was found to have "misled and deceived" Ms Strachan about the nature of his legal work. He failed to pay her, made "groundless allegations" about her having no law degree, and accused her of theft.

After she left and moved to Perth in December 2006, he also withdrew a reference he had provided to Child, Youth and Family in support of her application to adopt a child, telling officials she had a "psychopathic personality".

The Employment Court decision - delivered two years after the initial hearing - awarded Ms Strachan nearly $60,000 in unpaid wages, $30,000 compensation for unjustified constructive dismissal, and $2500 for Dr Moodie's refusal to provide a written employment agreement. Dr Moodie, who changed his name to Miss Alice in 2006 and wore Alice in Wonderland dresses to court, appealed in September to the Court of Appeal.

He criticised the Employment Court's decision on several grounds, including its two-year delay.


He also accused Judge Graeme Colgan of discriminating against his age and being biased towards Ms Strachan.

Yesterday, the Appeal Court refused Dr Moodie's application for a judicial review and dismissed his application for an extension of time to appeal.

Dr Moodie claimed comments in the June decision "were unfair, mistaken, unnecessary, unreasonable, gratuitous . . . and were calculated to lower his professional and personal standing by casting him in the light of being an old codger".

They were "dripping with bias and bad faith", he said.

But Justices O'Regan, French and Asher threw out his claims, saying: "We conclude that . . . the applicant's claim is so clearly bad that it should be precluded from going forward."

Contact Sam Boyer
Consumer Affairs reporter
Twitter: @SamJBoyer

The Dominion Post