Willis Australia Group Services Pty Ltd v Mitchell-Innes

Link copied
Case Copied 63 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Willis Australia Group Services Pty Ltd v Mitchell-Innes [2015] NSWCA 381
Hearing dates:8 and 9 October 2015
Decision date: 02 December 2015
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1];
Ward JA at [130];
Leeming JA at [137]
Decision:

(1) Appeal in relation to the assessment of damages allowed.

(2) Appeal on liability dismissed.

(3) Set aside Orders 1, 2 and 3 made at first instance on 8 December 2014.

(4) Direct that the parties file and serve written submissions concerning the quantification of damages and costs orders as follows:

(a) The appellant within 14 days of this judgment.
(b) The respondent within a further 14 days.
(c) Any response by the appellant within a further 7 days.
Catchwords:

EMPLOYMENT LAW – termination of employment – summary dismissal – whether employee exhibited signs of intoxication at work training course – whether employee intoxicated in a public place – whether employee intoxicated at a work-related social function – whether intoxication warranted summary dismissal for serious misconduct in serious circumstances

  DAMAGES – termination of employment – whether, if summary dismissal not available, employee would have been terminated on notice
Legislation Cited: Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW), s 4
Cases Cited: Blyth Chemicals Ltd v Bushnell [1933] HCA 8; 49 CLR 66
Clouston & Co Ltd v Corry [1906] AC 122
Commonwealth v Amann Aviation Pty Ltd [1991] HCA 54; 174 CLR 64
Concut Pty Ltd v Worrell [2000] HCA 64 75 ALJR 312
McDonald v Parnell Laboratories (Aust) Pty Ltd (2007) FCA 1903; 168 IR 375
Murray Irrigation Ltd v Balsdon [2006] NSWCA 253 67 NSWLR 73
New South Wales Cancer Council v Sarfaty (1992) 28 NSWLR 68
Rankin v Marine Power International Pty Ltd (2001) VSC 150; 107 IR 117
State of New South Wales v Moss [2000] NSWCA 133; 54 NSWLR 526
Tasmania Development & Resources v Martin [2000] FCA 414; 97 IR 66
TCN Channel Nine Pty Ltd v Hayden Enterprises Pty Ltd (1989) 16 NSWLR 130
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 101; 233 ALR 687
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Willis Australia Group Services Pty Ltd (Appellant)
Donald Mitchell-Innes (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Kirk SC/M Seck (Appellant)
J Pearce (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
Allens (Appellant)
Paul Murphy & Associates (Respondent)
File Number(s):CA 2014/376443
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil
Citation:
[2014] NSWDC 250
Date of Decision:
8 December 2014
Before:
P Taylor SC DCJ
File Number(s):
DC 2013/148638

HEADNOTE

[This headnote is not to be read as part of the judgment]

By letter dated 14 November 2012 the appellant (“Willis”) purported to terminate summarily the respondent’s employment as Willis’ New South Wales General Manager. The purported termination arose out of the respondent’s alleged serious misconduct prior to and during a training course held by Willis in Melbourne for the purposes of training and assessing the sales staff of its insurance…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Willis Australia Group Services Pty Ltd v Mitchell-Innes 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
[2015] NSWCA 381
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned the summary dismissal of an employee, Mr Mitchell-Innes, by his employer, Willis Australia Group Services Pty Ltd. The employer alleged that Mr Mitchell-Innes had exhibited signs of intoxication at a work training course and a work-related social function, constituting serious misconduct in serious circumstances justifying summary dismissal. The primary dispute was whether Mr Mitchell-Innes's conduct amounted to serious misconduct warranting summary dismissal, or if, in the alternative, his employment would have been terminated on notice. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal of New South Wales, comprising Macfarlan, Ward and Leeming JJA.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr Mitchell-Innes's alleged intoxication at the work training course and the subsequent social function constituted serious misconduct in serious circumstances, thereby justifying his summary dismissal. A further issue was whether, if summary dismissal was not justified, the employer would have otherwise terminated Mr Mitchell-Innes's employment on notice.

The Court of Appeal upheld the primary judge's finding that the conduct did not amount to serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal. However, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in relation to the assessment of damages. The Court reasoned that while the summary dismissal was not justified, the employer would have been entitled to terminate the employment on notice. Consequently, the damages recoverable by the employee were limited to the notice period, rather than the full period of employment. The Court set aside the orders made at first instance concerning the quantification of damages and directed the parties to file written submissions on this issue.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Appeal in relation to the assessment of damages allowed.

(2) Appeal on liability dismissed.

(3) Set aside Orders 1, 2 and 3 made at first instance on 8 December 2014.

(4) Direct that the parties file and serve written submissions concerning the quantification of damages and costs orders as follows:

(a) The appellant within 14 days of this judgment.

(b) The respondent within a further 14 days.

(c) Any response by the appellant within a further 7 days.

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.