CITATION: Fardell v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 346 HEARING DATE(S): 18, 19 and 20 August 2009
JUDGMENT DATE :
28 April 2010JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF: White J DECISION: I give verdict and direct entry of judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $819,180.50. I will hear the parties on costs. The exhibits may be returned after 28 days. CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT – EMPLOYMENT – employee was senior executive – participant in employee incentive schemes – employment contract provided for notice periods for termination of employment and payments to employee on termination – contract allowed employee to terminate contract for change of control of employer leading to material diminution of role and responsibilities and additional payment in lieu of notice – takeover of employer – employee gave conditional notice under change of control provision – employer terminated contract and employment - CONTRACT – construction of contract – employee not entitled to benefits under employee incentive schemes if employment terminated earlier – entitled to pro-rata benefits under transitional arrangements and amended employee incentive schemes – purported amendments of incentive schemes effective – plaintiff entitled to benefits under schemes as amended - CONTRACT – employee gave valid termination notice – change of control leading to material diminution in role and responsibilities – “entitlement” to more than 50% of shares in employer includes equitable interest – requirements for valid notice of termination – conditional notice valid provided condition is certain – notice operates on fulfilment of condition – employer wrongly terminated employment after valid notice given – breach of implied term not to hinder or prevent fulfilment of purpose of provision in contract – employee entitled to damages equal to amount payable under provision - CONTRACT – employee not entitled to redundancy payments – damages not reduced by earnings made after termination – employee entitled to be put in same position had contract been performed LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW)CATEGORY: Principal judgment CASES CITED: Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 399
Re Primac Holdings Ltd & Anor (1988) 14 ACLR 580
Burton Group Ltd v Smith [1977] IRLR 351
Mannai Investment Co Ltd v Eagle Star Life Assurance Co Ltd [1997] AC 749
Carter v Hyde (1923) 33 CLR 115
Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Health Minders Pty Ltd (1987) 9 NSWLR 673
Fightvision Pty Ltd v Onisforou [1999] NSWCA 323; (1999) 47 NSWLR 473
Frederick v State of South Australia [2006] SASC 165; (2006) 152 IR 182
Gunnedah Shire Council v Grout (1995) 134 ALR 156
Fryar v System Services Pty Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 321
Payne v Foxboro L & N Pty Ltd (1998) 81 IR 404
Thickbroom v Newcastle Wallsend Coal Company Pty Ltd (1998) 83 IR 193
Grout v Gunnedah Shire Council (1994) 125 ALR 355
Birrell v Australian National Airlines Commission (1984) 5 FCR
McGrane v Ryan (1965) 7 AILR 83
Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Fardell v Coates Hire Operations Pty 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2010] NSWSC 346
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The dispute in Fardell v Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd involved a former senior executive of Coates Hire Operations Pty Ltd, who was terminated following the takeover of the company. The employee, Mr Fardell, sought damages and other entitlements following his termination, including payments related to employee incentive schemes and redundancy payments. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.
The legal issues before the court included whether Mr Fardell was entitled to benefits under the employee incentive schemes, whether his termination notice was valid, and whether he was entitled to redundancy payments. The court needed to interpret the employment contract, including the change of control clause, and assess whether the employer's actions breached any contractual terms.
The court found that Mr Fardell's conditional termination notice was valid, as the condition was certain and the notice operated upon the takeover's completion. The court held that the employer breached the implied term not to hinder or prevent the fulfilment of the purpose of the change of control clause by terminating Mr Fardell's employment. Consequently, Mr Fardell was entitled to damages equal to the amount payable under the change of control clause. The court also determined that Mr Fardell was not entitled to redundancy payments as he was a senior executive and not covered by the relevant provisions. However, he was entitled to be put in the same position had the contract been performed, including receiving benefits under the amended employee incentive schemes.
The court's final orders included awarding Mr Fardell damages for breach of contract and confirming his entitlement to benefits under the amended employee incentive schemes. The court did not reduce the damages by any earnings Mr Fardell made after his termination, as this would not place him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed.
The legal issues before the court included whether Mr Fardell was entitled to benefits under the employee incentive schemes, whether his termination notice was valid, and whether he was entitled to redundancy payments. The court needed to interpret the employment contract, including the change of control clause, and assess whether the employer's actions breached any contractual terms.
The court found that Mr Fardell's conditional termination notice was valid, as the condition was certain and the notice operated upon the takeover's completion. The court held that the employer breached the implied term not to hinder or prevent the fulfilment of the purpose of the change of control clause by terminating Mr Fardell's employment. Consequently, Mr Fardell was entitled to damages equal to the amount payable under the change of control clause. The court also determined that Mr Fardell was not entitled to redundancy payments as he was a senior executive and not covered by the relevant provisions. However, he was entitled to be put in the same position had the contract been performed, including receiving benefits under the amended employee incentive schemes.
The court's final orders included awarding Mr Fardell damages for breach of contract and confirming his entitlement to benefits under the amended employee incentive schemes. The court did not reduce the damages by any earnings Mr Fardell made after his termination, as this would not place him in the position he would have been in had the contract been performed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.