Green v Brown [2002] NSWIRComm 177

Green v Brown [2002] NSWIRComm 177

The Commission held that while a party is generally estopped under the Anshun principle from raising in new proceedings matters that could and should reasonably have been raised in prior proceedings, special circumstances existed here given the nature and development of the claims, subsequent amendments and findings, and distinctions between causes of action. Thus, the s 275 claims could proceed. However, it was not appropriate to make orders shifting the costs of prior Supreme Court proceedings onto the appellants, as doing so would effectively undermine discrete and final costs orders made in those proceedings. The trial judge's decision to set a twelve month notice period for...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Bench Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Judgments and Orders of Schmidt J
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; orders varied; certain orders of trial judge set aside; slip rule correction made; 70% costs of appeal awarded to appellants.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'estoppel (anshun Principle)' 'termination of Employment' 'disclosure of Confidential Information' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'mitigation of Damages' 'slip Rule' 'costs Orders' 'variation of Partnership Agreements' 'res Judicata']
['industrial Law' 'contract Law' 'employment Law' 'equity'] ['unfair Contract' 'estoppel (anshun Principle)' 'termination of Employment' 'disclosure of Confidential Information' 'breach of Fiduciary Duty' 'mitigation of Damages' 'slip Rule' 'costs Orders' 'variation of Partnership Agreements' 'res Judicata']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Bench Decision on Appeal and Cross Appeal From Judgments and Orders of Schmidt J

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Anshun estoppel precluded claims under s 275 based on similar facts to claims raised in previous proceedings' 'Whether the Commission could make orders affecting previous Supreme Court costs orders' "Whether Image was entitled to summarily terminate Ms Brown's consultancy agreement" 'Whether Ms Brown breached fiduciary duty or misused confidential information' 'Appropriate period of notice for termination and mitigation of loss' 'Appropriate compensation for unfair partnership dissolution and variation']

Ratio Decidendi

The Commission held that while a party is generally estopped under the Anshun principle from raising in new proceedings matters that could and should reasonably have been raised in prior proceedings, special circumstances existed here given the nature and development of the claims, subsequent amendments and findings, and distinctions between causes of action. Thus, the s 275 claims could proceed. However, it was not appropriate to make orders shifting the costs of prior Supreme Court proceedings onto the appellants, as doing so would effectively undermine discrete and final costs orders made in those proceedings. The trial judge's decision to set a twelve month notice period for...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; orders varied; certain orders of trial judge set aside; slip rule correction made; 70% costs of appeal awarded to appellants.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal upheld to the extent identified in reasons.' 'Decision and orders of Schmidt J varied by (a) adding an order for calculation of compensation for Ms Brown based on notional earnings, business establishment expenses, and deduction of new employment income; (b) deleting the prior...