Dodds v Premier Sports Australia Pty Ltd

Dodds was employed by a United States corporation to manage a pay television business in Australia. The employment contract contained a substantial termination benefit provision. Following a change in control of the business, the United States corporation divested itself of any interest in the business. The plaintiff continued to work for the business under the new employer, who was unaware of the termination benefit provision in the former contract. The plaintiff sought to enforce the termination benefit upon his eventual departure from the business. The court was required to determine whether the termination benefit provision was assigned to the new employer and whether there was an implied incorporation of the former contract's terms into the new employment contract.

The court considered whether the termination benefit provision in the plaintiff's former employment contract was assigned to the new employer. It also needed to determine whether a new employment contract was made with the new employer that impliedly incorporated all terms of the former contract, including the termination benefit. The court examined the circumstances of the change in control and the knowledge of the new employer regarding the former contract's terms. It concluded that the plaintiff's new employment contract did not include the termination benefit provision from the former contract, as there was no assignment or implication of the former contract's terms into the new contract.

The court held that the termination benefit provision in the plaintiff's former employment contract was not assigned to the new employer and was not incorporated by implication into the new employment contract. The court found that the new employer had no knowledge of the termination benefit provision and that there was no assignment or implication of the former contract's terms into the new contract. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for the termination benefit was dismissed.

The court's final order was that the plaintiff's claim for the termination benefit was dismissed, and there were no orders for costs.