Reported Decision: 159 IR 52
Court of Appeal
CITATION: MURRAY IRRIGATION LTD v BALSDON [2006] NSWCA 253 HEARING DATE(S): 01/08/2006
JUDGMENT DATE:
19 September 2006JUDGMENT OF: Handley JA at 1; Ipp JA at 2; Bryson JA at 3 DECISION: Appeal allowed - see [60] CATCHWORDS: EMPLOYMENT – termination – non-standard contractual terms dealing with termination and notice - Respondent employed on two-year contract as Manager Maintenance, Deniliquin was dismissed without notice for alleged breach in failing to give information required by employer about its affairs and property - Clause 36.2.8 provided "Termination of employment by MIL shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable" – clause 17 provided for payment of three months’ wages in lieu of notice "… except in cases of acts of delinquency or incompetence." - respondent refused to give information because information asked for was relevant to criminal charges which Police had brought against him - held that in the circumstances insisting on information and terminating for breach was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and was in breach of contract - employment was terminated but employer was liable to damages for failing to give three months’ notice - consideration whether respondent entitled to damages for loss of prospects of further employment after expiry of current two-year contract - held that he was not. LEGISLATION CITED: Constitution s.51(xxix)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s.249
Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) s.84(1)
Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) s.170DE(1) & (2)
Suitors’ Fund Act 1951 (NSW)CASES CITED: Associated Dominion Assurance Society Pty Ltd v Andrew & Haraldson (1949) 49 SR (NSW) 351
Baker v Commissioner of The Australian Federal Police (2000) 104 FCR 359
Commonwealth Of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64
Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exchequer 341
In Re Dispute – Board of Fire Commissioners Re Reports [1971] AR (NSW) 615
Kilburn v Enzed Precision Products (Australia) Pty Ltd (1988) 5 VIR 31
Martin v Tasmania Development And Resources [1999] FCA 593
New South Wales Cancer Council v Sarfaty (1992) 28 NSWLR 68
Patty v Commonwealth Bank Of Australia (2000) 179 ALR 57
Re Matthews [2001] WASC 61
Regina v Travers (1957) 58 SR (NSW) 85
Reid v Howard (1995) 184 CLR 1
Ridge v Baldwin [1964] AC 40
State of Victoria v Commonwealth Of Australia (1996) 187 CLR 416
Tasmania Development & Resources v Martin [2000] FCA 414, (2000) 97 IR 66
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 101PARTIES: Murray Irrigation Limited - Appellant
Anthony Balsdon - RespondentFILE NUMBER(S): CA 40760/2005 COUNSEL: D.J. Fagan SC & R. Moore - Appellant
J.V. Hurley - RespondentSOLICITORS: Ebsworth & Ebsworth - Appellant
Nicholas W.J. Rolfe & Associates - RespondentLOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 159/2004 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ashford DCJ LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 31/08/2004
CA 40760/2005
HANDLEY JA
IPP JA
BRYSON JA
19 SEPTEMBER 2006
MURRAY IRRIGATION LIMITED V ANTHONY BALSDON
Judgment
1 HANDLEY JA: In this matter I…
Continue reading Murray Irrigation Ltd v Balsdon
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Murray Irrigation Ltd v Balsdon [2006] NSWCA 253
- Case
- [2006] NSWCA 253
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Murray Irrigation Ltd (MIL) appealed to the Court of Appeal of New South Wales against a decision concerning the termination of Mr Balsdon's employment. Mr Balsdon, employed as Manager Maintenance, was dismissed without notice by MIL. The dispute centred on whether the termination was lawful, particularly in light of contractual provisions regarding notice and the circumstances surrounding the dismissal.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether MIL's termination of Mr Balsdon's employment was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as stipulated by clause 36.2.8 of his contract. It also had to consider whether the exception in clause 17, which allowed for termination without payment in lieu of notice in cases of "acts of delinquency or incompetence," applied to Mr Balsdon's conduct. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether Mr Balsdon was entitled to damages for the loss of prospects of further employment beyond the initial two-year contract term.
The Court of Appeal found that MIL's insistence on receiving information from Mr Balsdon, which he had refused to provide due to its relevance to criminal charges he was facing, and his subsequent termination for this refusal, constituted a harsh, unjust, and unreasonable dismissal. Consequently, MIL was found to be in breach of contract. While the termination itself was upheld, MIL was liable to pay Mr Balsdon three months' wages in lieu of notice, as the exception for acts of delinquency or incompetence did not apply in these circumstances. The court also held that Mr Balsdon was not entitled to damages for any loss of prospects of further employment beyond the expiry of his two-year contract. The appeal was allowed.
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether MIL's termination of Mr Balsdon's employment was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable, as stipulated by clause 36.2.8 of his contract. It also had to consider whether the exception in clause 17, which allowed for termination without payment in lieu of notice in cases of "acts of delinquency or incompetence," applied to Mr Balsdon's conduct. Furthermore, the court needed to assess whether Mr Balsdon was entitled to damages for the loss of prospects of further employment beyond the initial two-year contract term.
The Court of Appeal found that MIL's insistence on receiving information from Mr Balsdon, which he had refused to provide due to its relevance to criminal charges he was facing, and his subsequent termination for this refusal, constituted a harsh, unjust, and unreasonable dismissal. Consequently, MIL was found to be in breach of contract. While the termination itself was upheld, MIL was liable to pay Mr Balsdon three months' wages in lieu of notice, as the exception for acts of delinquency or incompetence did not apply in these circumstances. The court also held that Mr Balsdon was not entitled to damages for any loss of prospects of further employment beyond the expiry of his two-year contract. The appeal was allowed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal allowed - see [60]
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.