Legal Research
Cases
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd

Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 23 June 2006 53 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited (formerly known as Salomon Smith Barney Australia Securities Pty Limited)
[2006] FCAFC 101
CONTRACT – construction – reconciliation of standard form and special clauses
DAMAGES – where contract of employment repudiated – where provision for termination without cause
DAMAGES – where evidence of consequential loss and damage unchallenged
Walker v Salomon Smith Barney Securities Pty Ltd & Anor [2003] FCA 1099 related
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1678 varied
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1866 varied
Amann Aviation Pty Limited v Commonwealth (1990) 22 FCR 527 cited
Bostik (Australia) Pty Ltd v Gorgevski (No 1) (1992) 36 FCR 20 distinguished
China Ocean Shipping Co Ltd v PS Chellaram & Co Ltd (1990) 28 NSWLR 354 cited
Commonwealth of Australia v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd (1991) 174 CLR 64 applied
Finucane v New South Wales Egg Corporation (1988) 80 ALR 486 cited
GEC Marconi Systems Pty Ltd v BHP Information Technology Pty Ltd (2003) 128 FCR 1 cited
Godecke v Kirwan (1973) 129 CLR 629 cited
Hume Steel Limited v The Attorney General for Victoria (1927) 39 CLR 455 applied
Karaguleski v Vasil Bros & Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 NSWLR 267 cited
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451 cited
Rawson v Hobbs (1961) 107 CLR 466 cited
Re Theodorou [1993] 1 Qd R 588 cited
TCN Channel 9 Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130 applied
Torr & Torr Realty Pty Ltd v John Lockrey Pty Ltd (1994) 6 BPR 13,749 cited
DAVID WALKER v CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA SECURITIES PTY LIMITED)
VID 77 OF 2006
CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED) v DAVID WALKER
VID 233 OF 2006
GYLES, EDMONDS AND GREENWOOD JJ
23 JUNE 2006
SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 77 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

DAVID WALKER
APPELLANT

AND:

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA SECURITIES PTY LIMITED)
RESPONDENT

JUDGES:

GYLES, EDMONDS AND GREENWOOD JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

23 JUNE 2006

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
The appeal be stood over generally to enable counsel for Walker to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to this judgment.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 233 OF 2006

ON APPEAL FROM A SINGLE JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED)
APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT

AND:

DAVID WALKER
RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT

JUDGES:

GYLES, EDMONDS AND…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd 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: [2006] FCAFC 101
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Walker, and the defendant, Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd, formerly known as NatWest. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. Mr. Walker sought to recover a substantial bonus payment due to him from his former employer, ABN AMRO, which he was unable to receive due to his employment contract with NatWest. The key issue before the court was whether NatWest's acquisition by Salomon Smith Barney and subsequent name changes affected the enforceability of the contract. Additionally, the court considered whether the inconsistency in the treatment of NatWest's right to terminate the contract on one month's notice between two previous judgments was a result of the delay in delivering those judgments.

The court found that the contractual relationship between Mr. Walker and NatWest remained valid and enforceable despite the acquisition and name changes. The court determined that the contractual obligations were not affected by these changes, and the contract remained binding. Furthermore, the court held that the delay in delivering the judgments did not account for the inconsistency in the treatment of NatWest's right to terminate the contract. The court awarded interest along the lines decided by the primary judge and ordered that costs should follow the event on the appeal and at first instance.

In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of Mr. Walker, upholding the enforceability of the employment contract with NatWest. The appeals and cross-appeals were stood over to allow for the preparation of orders to give effect to the judgment. If the parties could not reach a consensus, the matter would be relisted for argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal be stood over generally to enable counsel for Walker to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to this judgment.

The appeal and cross-appeal stand over generally to enable counsel for Walker to bring in short minutes of order to give effect to this judgment.

Background

Background to the litigation

One further issue arises. Walker contends that the inconsistency of treatment as to the entitlement of NatWest to terminate the contract on one month’s notice between judgments is a function of the delay in delivering the judgments. BACKGROUND FACTS AND THE ISSUES FOR TRIAL There is no appeal against the findings of primary fact. The following account of the background facts is taken substantially from the judgments in Walker No 1 and Walker No 2. The contractual events In August 1997, Walker was approached by a head hunter, Ms Lancaster, and asked whether he would consider taking up a position as a Senior Resource Analyst within the Research Department of the Equities Division of NatWest. At this time he was an Executive Director and Head of Research at ABN AMRO, a company which he had joined in 1995. Up to early 1998, the stockbroker County NatWest Securities Australia Limited (NatWest), was owned by NatWest Markets Australia Limited a wholly owned subsidiary of National Westminster Bank Plc. In February 1998, Salomon Smith Barney Australia Pty Limited acquired the shares in NatWest and on 1 April 1998 renamed NatWest, Salomon Smith Barney Australia Securities Pty Limited. Salomon Smith Barney Australia Securities Pty Limited was a subsidiary of the United States stockbroking corporation, Salomon Smith Barney Holdings Inc. That corporation is a subsidiary of Citigroup Inc, a large United States bank. In 2003, Salomon Smith Barney Australia Securities Pty Limited changed its name to Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd and Salomon Smith Barney Australia Pty Limited changed its name to Citigroup Global Markets Australia Holdings Pty Ltd. It is therefore convenient to describe Citigroup Global Market Australia Pty Limited as ‘NatWest’ and Citigroup Global Markets Australia Holdings Pty Limited as ‘Citigroup Australia’. During the course of August, September and November 1997, Walker engaged in discussions with Lancaster, Mr Robert Thomas the Managing Director of the Equities Division of NatWest and Mr Mark Fulton the Head of Research at NatWest who reported to Thomas, concerning the terms and conditions upon which Walker might enter into a contract of employment with NatWest. A preliminary meeting took place on 12 August 1997 between Walker, Lancaster and Thomas in relation to a possible appointment. At this meeting, Walker explained that a substantial bonus was due to him from ABN AMRO on 15 January 1998 and that in order to receive the bonus he could not resign before that date. On 10 September 1997, Walker met with Lancaster, Fulton and three others from NatWest. Walker discussed the role he might assume in the Resource Department of NatWest’s Equities Division, focusing on RTZ or BHP. Walker raised with Fulton and Lancaster at a separate meeting that day rumours concerning the sale of National Westminster Bank’s Australian operations. Fulton said a sale was on the cards but that this would not affect NatWest’s interest in recruiting him. No terms of remuneration were discussed at this meeting.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

GYLES, EDMONDS AND GREENWOOD JJ

There appears no reason why:(1) costs should not follow the event on the appeal and at first instance; and(2) interest should not be awarded along the lines decided by the primary judge.Conclusion The appeals and the cross-appeal will stand over generally to enable counsel for Walker to bring in short minutes of the orders to be made to give effect to this judgment. If by consent, orders can be made in chambers. If not, the matter will be relisted for argument.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GYLES, EDMONDS AND GREENWOOD JJ

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 77 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	DAVID WALKER APPELLANT
AND:	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA SECURITIES PTY LIMITED) RESPONDENT
JUDGES:	GYLES, EDMONDS AND GREENWOOD JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	23 JUNE 2006
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	VID 233 OF 2006

BETWEEN:	CITIGROUP GLOBAL MARKETS AUSTRALIA HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SALOMON SMITH BARNEY AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED) APPELLANT/CROSS-RESPONDENT
AND:	DAVID WALKER RESPONDENT/CROSS-APPELLANT
JUDGES:	GYLES, EDMONDS AND…