Legal Research
Cases
Foggo v O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) Pty Ltd

Foggo v O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 1 June 2011 83 min read

Contents

On this page

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Foggo v O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) Pty Limited [2011] NSWSC 501
Hearing dates: 27 April 2011, 28 April 2011
Decision date: 01 June 2011
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Schmidt J
Decision:
The parties should bring in short minutes of order to reflect the conclusions which I have reached. The usual order as to costs would be that costs follow the event, as agreed or assessed. In the event that the parties wish to be heard on costs, they should approach.

Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT LAW - contract of employment - repudiation - implied terms - bonuses - how bonus was determined - whether disputed bonus was not paid due to plaintiff's refusal to sign proposed new contract - termination of employment relationship - whether the defendant was contractually entitled to impose conditions on the payment of the bonus - whether conditions imposed breached any fetter on the defendant's discretion - failure to pay the bonus - breach of contract - implied terms - grievance policy - whether grievance policy had contractual force, so far as the defendant was concerned - whether defendant breached its obligations under the policy - implied terms - whether refusal to adhere to the grievance policy amount to repudiation - damages
Cases Cited: BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 180 CLR 266
Burger King Corporation v Hungry Jack's Pty Ltd [2001] NSWCA 187; (2001) 69 NSWLR 558
Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410
Byrne v Macquarie Group Services Australia Pty Ltd [2011] NSWCA 68
DTR Nominees Pty Ltd v Mona Homes Pty Ltd [1978] HCA 12; (1978) 138 CLR 423
Goldman Sachs JBWere Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120; (2007) 163 FCR 62
Heptonstall v Gaskin (No 2) [2005] NSWSC 30
Koompahtoo Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited [2007] HCA 61; (2007) 233 CLR 115
Ogle v Comboyuro Investments Pty Ltd [1976] HCA 21;(1976) 136 CLR 44
Riverwood International Australia Pty Ltd v McCormick [2000] FCA 889; (2000) 177 ALR 193
Russell v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney [2007] NSWSC 104; (2007) 69 NSWLR 198
Russell v the Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney [2008] NSWSC 217; (2008) 72 NSWLR 559
Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [2010] NSWCA 357
Thomson v Orica Australia Pty Ltd [2002] FCA 939; (2002) 116 IR 186
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; (2004) 219 CLR 165
United Group Rail Services Ltd v Rail Corporation New South Wales [2009] NSWCA 177; (2009) NSWLR 618
Yousif v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2010] FCAFC 8; (2010) 193 IR 212
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Daniel Foggo (Plaintiff)
O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) Pty Limited (Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
Mr JJ Fernon SC with Mr D Chin (Plaintiff)
Mr SG Finch SC with Mr AB Gotting (Defendant)
Solicitors:

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 Foggo v O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) 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

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: [2011] NSWSC 501
Decision Date: 01 June 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Foggo v O'Sullivan Partners (Advisory) Pty Ltd involved the plaintiff, Mr Foggo, who was employed by the defendant, O'Sullivan Partners, an advisory firm. The dispute centred on the plaintiff's claim for unpaid bonuses and damages arising from the termination of his employment. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. Mr Foggo alleged that his employment contract was breached when the defendant failed to pay him certain bonuses and terminated his employment under contentious circumstances.

The legal issues before the court were multifaceted. Firstly, it needed to determine whether the defendant was entitled to impose conditions on the payment of the bonus, and if those conditions breached any limitations on the defendant's discretion. Secondly, it had to assess whether the refusal to pay the bonus constituted a breach of contract and if there were any implied terms within the employment relationship that obligated the defendant to adhere to a grievance policy. Additionally, the court had to decide if the defendant's failure to follow the grievance policy amounted to a repudiatory breach of contract.

The court found that the defendant was indeed contractually entitled to impose conditions on the payment of the bonus, but the conditions imposed went beyond the scope of the contractual agreement, effectively fettering the defendant's discretion. It was determined that the failure to pay the bonus was a breach of contract, and the implied terms within the employment relationship did not require adherence to a specific grievance policy. However, the court found that the manner in which the defendant handled the grievance process amounted to a repudiatory breach of the employment contract. Consequently, the court awarded Mr Foggo damages for the breach of contract, including the unpaid bonuses and additional compensation for the wrongful termination.

The final orders of the court included the payment of the disputed bonuses to Mr Foggo, along with additional damages for the breach of contract and the manner in which his employment was terminated. The court's decision underscored the importance of adhering to the terms of employment contracts and the consequences of failing to follow proper grievance procedures.

Orders