Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation

The case of Murphy v Westpac Banking Corporation involved several employees who were seconded from St George Bank (SGB) to Westpac Banking Corporation (Westpac) and who subsequently sought to recover lost entitlements. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The central issues included whether the employer disclosed the true nature of a retention incentive scheme to employees, whether the employer's non-disclosure constituted deceit or negligence, and whether employees enjoyed contractual rights to bonuses or incentives. Another issue was whether there was an implied term that the employer could not exercise its discretion capriciously, arbitrarily, or unreasonably. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the secondment policy applied to seconded employees and whether reasonable notice was given to employees upon termination.

The court found that the retention incentive scheme claims should be rejected as there was insufficient evidence to support claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) or the torts of deceit and negligence. The court also held that the retention incentive policy had contractual force, but only Mr Wittenberg was entitled to recover damages for the 2008/2009 financial year. The court rejected claims related to the Management Target Incentive Plan (MTIP) and the Short Term Incentive Award (STIA) on the grounds that the claimants were either ineligible to participate or had not suffered a loss. Regarding the Discretionary Incentive Payment (DIP), the court found that Mr Poulos had not established any breach of his contractual entitlements.

In terms of the orders, the court directed the parties to seek agreement on proposed short minutes of order and to file their respective submissions if agreement could not be reached. The court also noted that liberty to apply for further orders was available upon 48 hours' notice.