New South Wales
Court of Appeal
CITATION: Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd v David Campbell [2009] NSWCA 286 HEARING DATE(S): 24 August 2009
JUDGMENT DATE:
10 September 2009JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Macfarlan JA at 2; Sackville AJA at 3 DECISION: 1) Appeal allowed.
2) Set aside orders 1 to 4 made on 14 November 2008 and entered on 9 February 2009.
3) In lieu of the orders referred to in order 2 above, order that judgment be entered for the appellant (the defendant below).
4) Order the respondent to repay to the appellant the sum of $150,650.18 paid by it to the respondent pursuant to the orders made on 14 November 2008, together with interest thereon at the rates specified from time to time in Schedule 5 to the UCPR from 12 December 2008 to the date of repayment.
5) Direct the appellant to file within seven days an amended notice of appeal seeking restitution of the sum referred to in Order 4 and interest thereon.
6) The appellants file and serve written submissions on the costs of the trial and of the appeal within seven days.
7) The respondent file and serve written submissions in reply within a further seven days.CATCHWORDS: EMPLOYMENT LAW- contract of employment- period of notice required in termination of employment- whether in "event of redundancy" LEGISLATION CITED: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s75A
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 51.52(3), 51.54; Schedule 5CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10; 222 CLR 241
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64; 176 ALR 693
Dibb v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126; 136 FCR 388
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Sara Lee Household & Body Care (Australia) Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 35; 201 CLR 520
Heydon v NRMA (No 2) [2001] NSWCA 445; 53 NSWLR 600
Jones v Department of Energy and Minerals [1995] IRCA 292; 60 IR 304
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paripas [2004] HCA 35; 218 CLR 451
Toll FGCT Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 32;219 CLR 165
R v Industrial Commission (SA); Ex Parte Adelaide Milk Supply Co-operative Ltd (1977) 16 SASR 6
Short v F W Hercus Pty Ltd [1993] FCA 51; 40 FCR 511
Tallerman and Co Pty Ltd v Nathan's Merchandise (Vic) Pty Ltd [1957] HCA 10; 98 CLR 93
TCN Channel 9 v Antoniadis (No 2) [1999] NSWCA 104
Willis v Health Communications Network Ltd [207] NSWCA 313PARTIES: Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd (Appellant)
David Campbell (Respondent)FILE NUMBER(S): CA CA 40420/08 COUNSEL: T Hale SC/ P Sibtain (Appellant)
A McInerney (Respondent)SOLICITORS: Unsworth Legal (Appellant)
Carneys Lawyers (Respondent)LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court - Equity Division LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 5617/06 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Bergin CJ in Eq LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 11 November 2008 LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: Campbell v Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd v Campbell 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2009] NSWCA 286
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issue before the court was the interpretation of a clause in the employment contract that stipulated a notice period of "six months or six months' pay" in the event of redundancy. The court was required to determine whether the circumstances of the respondent's termination constituted a redundancy within the meaning of the contract, and consequently, what notice period was legally due.
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous orders made by the trial court. The court reasoned that the respondent's employment was terminated not due to redundancy, but rather due to the employer's decision to cease a particular business operation. This distinction was critical, as the contractual provision for a six-month notice period was expressly limited to "event of redundancy." As such, the court found that the respondent was not entitled to the extended notice period stipulated for redundancy. The court ordered the respondent to repay the sum of $150,650.18, which had been paid pursuant to the earlier orders, along with interest.
Orders
Orders of the court
1) Appeal allowed.
2) Set aside orders 1 to 4 made on 14 November 2008 and entered on 9 February 2009.
3) In lieu of the orders referred to in order 2 above, order that judgment be entered for the appellant (the defendant below).
4) Order the respondent to repay to the appellant the sum of $150,650.18 paid by it to the respondent pursuant to the orders made on 14 November 2008, together with interest thereon at the rates specified from time to time in Schedule 5 to the UCPR from 12 December 2008 to the date of repayment.
5) Direct the appellant to file within seven days an amended notice of appeal seeking restitution of the sum referred to in Order 4 and interest thereon.
6) The appellants file and serve written submissions on the costs of the trial and of the appeal within seven days.
7) The respondent file and serve written submissions in reply within a further seven days.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.