Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 3)

In the matter of Tredders Investments Pty Ltd as trustee for Warren Tredrea Trust v Channel 9 South Australia (No 3), the applicants, who were contractors under a Services Agreement with Channel 9 South Australia, sought damages for the alleged wrongful termination of the Services Agreement. The dispute arose from Channel 9's direction that all employees and contractors must provide evidence of COVID-19 vaccination status or a valid medical exemption, which the applicants failed to comply with, resulting in termination of the agreement. The applicants argued that the termination was unjustified and sought either damages or a variation of the agreement to create liability on Channel 9 for compensation. The central legal issues were whether Channel 9 lawfully and reasonably exercised its power to terminate the Services Agreement under clause 9.1(a), whether the applicants disobeyed a lawful direction, and whether Channel 9's decision to terminate was reasonable.

The court held that the onus of proving the wrongful termination lay with the applicants. The court noted that the applicants needed to demonstrate that Channel 9's termination was not authorised by the terms of the agreement. The court analysed each of the directions issued by Channel 9 and concluded that they were lawful and reasonable. The court found that the applicants had indeed disobeyed a lawful direction and that Channel 9's decision to terminate the agreement was justified. Consequently, the applicants' claim for damages was dismissed. Additionally, the application for an order under the Independent Contractors Act 2006 (Cth) to vary the agreement was also dismissed.

The court ordered that the originating application be dismissed and that the applicants pay Channel 9's costs of the proceeding. The parties were given the opportunity to submit written arguments on the costs if they wished to seek a different order. The court emphasised that the question of costs would be dealt with on the papers unless an oral hearing was necessary. The orders were to be entered in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.