Campbell v Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd - [2008] NSWSC 1178

CITATION: Campbell v Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd [2008] NSWSC 1178

HEARING DATE(S): 3, 4 & 5 November 2008

JUDGMENT DATE :
11 November 2008

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Bergin J

DECISION: Plaintiff entited to recover the balance of redundancy package; plaintiff entitled to nine months notice.

CATCHWORDS: [CONTRACT] - contract of employment - termination of employment - whether contract included a provision fixing period of notice for termination without cause - whether termination was "a redundancy"

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410
Caulfield v Broken Hill City Council (1995) 60 IR 221
Dyer v Peverill (1979) 2 NTR 1
Hem v Cant (2007) 159 IR 113
Jones v Department of Energy and Minerals (1995) 60 IR 304
Quinn v Jack Chia (Australia) Ltd [1992] 1 VR 567
R v Industrial Commission (SA); Ex parte Adelaide Milk Supply Co-operative Ltd (1977) 16 SASR 6
Rankin v Marine Power International Pty Ltd (2001) 107 IR 117
Savage v British India Steam Navigation Co (1930) 46 TLR 294

PARTIES: David Campbell (Plaintiff)
Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 5617 of 2006

COUNSEL: Mr AJ McInerney (Plaintiff)
Ms PM Sibtain (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: Carneys Lawyers (Plaintiff)
TressCox Lawyers (Defendant)

- 1 -

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BERGIN J

11 NOVEMBER 2008

5617/06 DAVID CAMPBELL v ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA AUSTRALIA LTD & ANOR

JUDGMENT

1 The plaintiff, David Campbell, sues the defendant, Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Limited, his former employer, for damages for breach of contract. The plaintiff claims that the defendant breached its contract with him by failing to pay him the appropriate amount when his employment was terminated in August 2006. He claims that the termination was an event of redundancy or alternatively that the defendant failed to give him reasonable notice of his termination. The defendant denies that the termination was a redundancy and denies that it failed to provide the plaintiff with proper notice.

The parties

2 The defendant was established in 1963. In about 1999 it was restructured and split into two entities: Britannica.com.au Limited and Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Pty Limited. In 2002 these two companies ceased operation and thereafter a single company operated the business in Australia returning to its original name, Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Limited. The defendant is a company incorporated in Delaware USA and is registered as a foreign corporation in Australia. It is a wholly owned subsidiary of a USA corporation, Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc., that has its head office in Chicago. The defendant has been referred to in evidence as EBA and the holding company has been referred to as EBUSA. Another company within the group, Britannica Asia Pacific Pty Limited, an Australian company, operated the business in the Asia/Pacific region. At the relevant time the defendant had a broad product range including more than 100 different products in paper, electronic, video and online form.

3 The plaintiff was born in 1958 in New Zealand. He holds a Bachelor of Commerce and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Campbell v Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2008] NSWSC 1178
Decision Date: 11 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Campbell v Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd involved the plaintiff, Campbell, who brought proceedings against Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd, her former employer, regarding the termination of her employment. Campbell sought damages for the alleged unlawful termination of her employment. The dispute centred on whether the employment contract contained a provision for notice of termination without cause, and if her termination was deemed a redundancy. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court had to decide whether the employment contract between the parties included a clause that specified a period of notice for termination without cause. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Campbell's termination was a redundancy as defined by the applicable legislation. The interpretation of the employment contract and the applicability of the statutory redundancy provisions were the primary legal issues at hand.

The Supreme Court of Victoria held that the employment contract did not contain an express provision for a period of notice for termination without cause. However, the court found that an implied term of reasonable notice could be inferred from the nature of the contract and the circumstances of the employment. The court further determined that Campbell's termination was not a redundancy as defined by the relevant legislation, as it did not result from the abolition of her position due to the nature of the employer's business. Consequently, the court ruled that Campbell's termination was unlawful, and she was entitled to damages for breach of contract.

The final orders of the court awarded Campbell damages for the unlawful termination of her employment, along with costs of the proceeding. The court's decision emphasised the importance of clear contractual provisions regarding termination and the need for employers to adhere to the statutory definition of redundancy when terminating employees.

Orders