Ethell, Alison v Societe Generale Australia Ltd [1995] FCA 906

Ethell, Alison v Societe Generale Australia Ltd [1995] FCA 906

The bonus scheme signed 9 January 1992 was a binding term of the applicant’s employment, intended to operate for calendar year 1992 without unilateral variation. SGAL was not contractually entitled to divert or reallocate revenue for bonus purposes away from Corporate Desk without the applicant’s consent, except for minor voluntary 'giveaways.' SGAL’s actions in reallocating/reducing the applicant’s entitlements in June and September 1992 amounted to breaches of the bonus agreement. The cancellation/variation clause was limited in scope and not engaged on the facts. The applicant was thus entitled to succeed in her claim for unpaid bonus entitlements, subject to allowance for agreed...

Parties
Applicant: Alison Ethell; Respondent: Societe Generale Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Applicant succeeded—entitled to unpaid bonuses
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Employment Bonus Schemes, Unilateral Variation of Contract, Foreign Exchange Transactions, Dealers' Commission, Interpretation of Contracts, Section 52 Trade Practices Act, Attribution of Profit in Banking
Contract Banking and Finance Trade Practices Breach of Contract Employment Bonus Schemes Unilateral Variation of Contract Foreign Exchange Transactions Dealers' Commission +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alison Ethell

Applicant

Societe Generale Australia Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the written bonus agreement was an express term of employment
  2. 2 Whether the bonus scheme could be unilaterally varied
  3. 3 Whether the bank was entitled to reallocate revenue for bonus purposes

Ratio Decidendi

The bonus scheme signed 9 January 1992 was a binding term of the applicant’s employment, intended to operate for calendar year 1992 without unilateral variation. SGAL was not contractually entitled to divert or reallocate revenue for bonus purposes away from Corporate Desk without the applicant’s consent, except for minor voluntary 'giveaways.' SGAL’s actions in reallocating/reducing the applicant’s entitlements in June and September 1992 amounted to breaches of the bonus agreement. The cancellation/variation clause was limited in scope and not engaged on the facts. The applicant was thus entitled to succeed in her claim for unpaid bonus entitlements, subject to allowance for agreed...

Court Disposition

Applicant succeeded—entitled to unpaid bonuses

Orders

  • Short Minutes to be prepared by the applicant and served on respondent
  • Matter to be set down for making of formal orders, interest, and costs on a date to be arranged