Griffith University v Tang

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal by Griffith University against a decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal, which had affirmed a judgment in favour of Dr. Tang. Dr. Tang, a former employee of Griffith University, had brought proceedings against the university alleging breach of contract and misleading or deceptive conduct under the *Trade Practices Act 1974* (Cth) (now the *Competition and Consumer Act 2010* (Cth)). The dispute concerned the university's termination of Dr. Tang's employment and the circumstances surrounding that termination.

The central legal issues before the High Court were whether the university had breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Tang and whether its conduct in relation to his employment constituted misleading or deceptive conduct. Specifically, the court had to determine the proper interpretation of the employment contract and whether the university's actions, including representations made to Dr. Tang, were misleading or deceptive in contravention of the *Trade Practices Act*.

In their joint judgment, McHugh and Kirby JJ analysed the terms of Dr. Tang's employment contract and the relevant provisions of the *Trade Practices Act*. They considered the nature of the representations made by the university and whether these representations were factually accurate and legally binding. The court applied principles of contract law concerning the formation and breach of employment agreements, as well as the established tests for misleading or deceptive conduct under consumer protection legislation. Their Honours emphasised the importance of clear and unambiguous contractual terms and the potential for conduct, even if not intentionally deceptive, to be misleading if it creates a false impression.

The High Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. The court found that Griffith University had breached its contractual obligations to Dr. Tang and had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct. Consequently, the orders made by the lower courts in favour of Dr. Tang were affirmed.