Savills knew the substance of the claims since 2019 - the court drew a clear line on delay
The Federal Court has refused to shut down most of a sexual harassment and discrimination case against Savills, ruling that an employer who knows the substance of serious grievances for years cannot later rely on delay to avoid a trial.
In a decision handed down on July 29, 2026, the Federal Court dismissed most of an application by two Savills companies to have the case thrown out as an "abuse of process" - a legal argument that too much time has passed for a fair hearing. Five of the oldest allegations were permanently stayed, but the bulk of the case will go ahead.
The proceedings were brought by a former employee of the property advisory firm. She alleges she was subjected to sexual harassment, sex discrimination and victimisation between 2007 and 2019, with much of the alleged conduct attributed to a senior executive who served as the firm's state managing director and, later, its national head of office leasing. Her statement of claim sets out some 49 separate allegations.
She raised formal grievances with Savills in 2019, lodged a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission in February 2024, and began Federal Court proceedings in July 2025 after the Commission terminated her complaint.
Savills argued that the delay made a fair trial impossible, pointing to fading memories, missing witnesses and lost records. Of 17 employees named in the claim, it said only six still worked there, six former staff could not be located, and one had died.
The court was not persuaded on most of the case. The reason was straightforward: Savills had known the substance of the allegations for years. The court found the company was "on notice since June 2019 as to the nature of the claims made by Ms Ritter, their seriousness and the principal alleged actors." An employer in that position, the court reasoned, would be expected to investigate serious discrimination allegations, notify its insurers and preserve evidence.
The court was also critical of how the company had approached the dispute. Savills had discouraged the worker from going public or lodging a Commission complaint while the parties explored mediation - then later argued that the resulting delay should count against her. The court found Savills was "a party to the consequent delay" and could not reasonably rely on it.
The company did succeed on one point. The court permanently stayed five of the oldest allegations, dating from 2007 to 2012, accepting it would be unfair to require Savills to answer them so long after the events. For those claims, the gap of more than a decade created "the very real likelihood that a trial of those complaints would be unfair." One allegation from 2012 was stayed because the only person who could respond to it could not be located.
Everything else proceeds, including allegations tied to a 2015 business trip to New Zealand and a stretch of alleged conduct from 2016 to 2019. Savills has been ordered to file its defence.
For HR leaders, the reasoning is the real takeaway. Once an employer receives detailed grievances, the court effectively said, its duty to investigate and preserve evidence is triggered - and staying quiet does not switch that duty off. Delay tends to help only an employer that genuinely could not have prepared a defence. Where notice was clear and the resources to act were there, arguing that time alone has made a fair trial impossible is a hard case to run.
The court also pointed to the double-edged nature of a strong grievance record. The specificity of the 2019 complaints - named people, dated events - was precisely what put Savills on notice. A detailed, well-documented grievance can be harder for an employer to answer years later because there was every opportunity to answer it at the time.
None of the harassment or discrimination allegations has been tested at trial. The court made no finding that any of the alleged conduct occurred. This ruling decided only whether the case could proceed - not whether the claims are true.
