Guthrie v News Limited

Link copied
Case Copied 85 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 10144 of 2008

BETWEEN

BRUCE ROBERT GUTHRIE Plaintiff
v
NEWS LIMITED (ACN 007 871 178) Defendant

---

JUDGE:

KAYE J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATES OF HEARING:

27-30 April, 3 and 4 May 2010

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

14 May 2010

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Guthrie v News Limited

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2010] VSC 196

---

CONTRACT – Employment – Action for wrongful dismissal – Plaintiff employed as editor-in-chief of daily newspaper for three years – Whether defendant entitled to terminate appointment during that term – Whether defendant breached any obligation of good faith – Damages – Loss of opportunity for renewal of contract or redeployment in comparable position – Alternative claim for damages for termination payment stipulated by contract.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
For the Plaintiff Mr N O’Bryan SC and
Mr J McDougall
A J Macken & Co
For the Defendant Mr W Houghton QC and
Mr R Attiwill
Messrs Allens Arthur Robinson

HIS HONOUR:

  1. In this proceeding, the plaintiff claims damages in respect of his dismissal by the defendant from his position as the editor-in-chief of the Herald Sun newspaper in November 2008. 

  1. The Herald Sun newspaper is published by the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Limited.  That company is a subsidiary of the defendant, News Limited.  During the period which is relevant to these proceedings, Mr John Hartigan was the chairman, and chief executive officer, of News Limited.

  1. In late 2006, the then long standing managing director of the Herald and Weekly Times Limited, Mr Julian Clarke, informed Mr Hartigan that he intended, in the following year, to retire from his position as managing director.  Mr Hartigan decided that Mr Clarke should be succeeded in his role by Mr Peter Blunden, who had been the editor-in-chief of the Herald and Weekly Times Pty Limited since May 2001, and the editor of the Herald Sun since 1996.  Mr Blunden was to be appointed deputy managing director, with the intention that he would commence his duties as managing director upon the retirement of Mr Clarke in twelve months’ time.  Accordingly, it was necessary for Mr Hartigan to consider a replacement for Mr Blunden as the editor of the Herald Sun.  After consulting with Mr Blunden and Mr Clarke, Mr Hartigan decided to appoint the plaintiff to the position of editor of the Herald Sun newspaper. 

  1. At that time, the plaintiff was the editor of the Weekend Australian magazine, and the editor-in-chief of Wish magazine.  He had a long history of working in print media, commencing as a cadet journalist in 1972, and rising, through the ranks, to positions as the editor of a number of publications from the early 1990s. 

  1. The first offer of the position of editor to the plaintiff was made by Mr Hartigan in Mr Hartigan’s office in Sydney.  The plaintiff states that the meeting took place on about 24 November 2006.  Mr Hartigan in his evidence thought that the meeting occurred…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Guthrie v News Limited 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
[2010] VSC 196
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Guthrie v News Limited, the plaintiff sought damages for wrongful dismissal, having been employed as the editor-in-chief of a daily newspaper for three years. The defendant, News Limited, terminated the plaintiff's contract before the three-year term had elapsed. The primary issue before the court was whether the defendant was entitled to terminate the contract during the term and whether this action breached any obligation of good faith. The court also had to determine the plaintiff's entitlement to damages for loss of opportunity to renew the contract or redeploy in a comparable position, as well as an alternative claim for damages for the termination payment stipulated by the contract.

The court examined the terms of the employment contract and relevant case law to determine the circumstances under which the defendant could lawfully terminate the plaintiff's employment before the three-year term. The court found that the contract did not expressly permit termination during the term, and that the common law did not provide any general authority for such termination. The court held that the defendant was not entitled to terminate the plaintiff's appointment during the term, and that this action constituted a breach of the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implied in the contract. The court further found that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for the loss of opportunity to renew the contract or redeploy in a comparable position, as well as damages for the termination payment stipulated by the contract.

In conclusion, the court found in favour of the plaintiff and awarded damages for wrongful dismissal. The defendant was found to be liable for breaching the obligation of good faith and fair dealing implied in the contract by terminating the plaintiff's employment before the three-year term had elapsed. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff damages for the loss of opportunity to renew the contract or redeploy in a comparable position, as well as damages for the termination payment stipulated by the contract.

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.