Legal Research
Cases
Morris v Hanley

Morris v Hanley

Case [2003] NSWSC 42 13 February 2003

Implied Terms

Duty of Care

Negligence

Employment & Labour Law

Tort Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42

HEARING DATE(S): 17 June, 19 June - 4 July, 9 & 10 July, 15 August and 2 September 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
13 February 2003

JURISDICTION:
Equity

JUDGMENT OF: Hamilton J

DECISION: Judgment for the defendants.

CATCHWORDS: EMPLOYMENT LAW [21] - The contract of service and rights, duties and liabilities as between employer and employee - Discharge and breach - Generally - Implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in employment contract - Whether gives rise to fiduciary duty - EQUITY [36] - General principles - Fiduciary obligations - Particular cases - Company - Articles of association - Right given to permanent employees to apply for and be allotted shares - Whether company, director or other shareholders owed any fiduciary duty in relation to that right to a permanent employee who did not have shares - EVIDENCE [24] - Admissibility and relevancy - Facts relevant to facts in issue - In general - Course of business - Whether what was said on a particular occasion may be proved by evidence of practice - TORTS [22], [ 238] - Negligence - Essentials of action for negligence - Duty of care - Relationship of proximity - Company - Articles of association - Right given to permanent employees to apply for and be allotted shares - Whether company owed any duty of care in relation to that right to a permanent employee who did not have shares - Conspiring to injure - Particular cases - Whether conspiracy among shareholders made out.

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 140
Limitation Act 1969 s 55

CASES CITED: Armstrong v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (1999) 9 BPR 17,035
Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian Pty Ltd (1996) 142 ALR 144
Connor v Blacktown District Hospital [1971] 1 NSWLR 713
Eley v Positive Government Security Life Assurance Co Ltd (1876) 1 ExD 88
Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1993) 5 BPR 11,996
Hospital Products Ltd v United States Surgical Corporation (1984) 156 CLR 41
Johnson v Unisys Ltd [2001] 2 WLR 1076
Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International SA (In Compulsory Liquidation) [1998] AC 20
McKernan v Fraser (1931) 46 CLR 343
McWilliam v Penthouse Publications Ltd [2001] NSWCA 237
National Roads & Motorists' Association v Parker (1986) 6 NSWLR 517
News Limited v Australian Rugby Football League Limited (1996) 64 FCR 410
Nock v Austin (1918) 25 CLR 519
Perre v Apand Pty Limited (1999) 198 CLR 180
Pilmer v Duke Group Limited (In Liquidation) (2001) 207 CLR 165
Public Trustee v Permanent Trustee Co Ltd [1999] NSWSC 722
Scally v Southern Health and Social Services Board [1992] 1 AC 294
State Bank of NSW v Muir (1997) 8 BPR 15,483
Tai Hing Cotton Mill Ltd v Liu Chong Hing Bank Ltd [1986] AC 80
The King and the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth v The Associated Northern Collieries (1911) 14 CLR 387
The Paul Dainty Corporation Pty Ltd v The National Centre Trust (1990) 22 FCR…

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.

Continue reading Morris v Hanley

Details

AGLC: Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42
Case: [2003] NSWSC 42
Decision Date: 13 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Morris v Hanley was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute between the parties centred around the termination of the plaintiff's employment and the employer's alleged breach of the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in the employment contract. The plaintiff, Morris, also argued that the employer, Hanley, had conspired with other shareholders to injure him by wrongfully terminating his employment. The employer contended that there was no fiduciary duty or duty of care owed to Morris in relation to the right to apply for and be allotted shares, as per the company's articles of association.

The primary legal issues for the court to determine were whether the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence in the employment contract gave rise to a fiduciary duty and whether the company, director, or other shareholders owed any fiduciary or care duty in relation to the right to apply for and be allotted shares to a permanent employee who did not have shares. The court also had to consider whether a conspiracy among shareholders to injure Morris had been made out.

In its decision, the court held that the implied duty of mutual trust and confidence did not give rise to a fiduciary duty. The court found that the company, director, or other shareholders did not owe any fiduciary or care duty in relation to the right to apply for and be allotted shares to Morris, who did not have shares. The court also found that there was no evidence of a conspiracy among shareholders to injure Morris. The plaintiff's claims were therefore dismissed.

The court's final orders were that Morris' claims against Hanley and the other defendants were dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs of the proceeding.

Orders