Andrew Hennessey v Architectus Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1390

Andrew Hennessey v Architectus Group Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 1390

The Employment Deed was supplied in response to the 2 September 2008 letter's reference to an employment agreement, was specific to Mr Hennessy's employment, and objectively became part of the employment contract despite being unsigned. Clause 12.2(b) was therefore binding and supported by consideration because Mr Hennessy accepted the supplementary terms. Architectus failed to prove a common continuing intention excluding the minimum two year term: Mr Hennessy had not believed his employment was terminable merely on reasonable notice and both parties objectively intended to be bound by the deed's unread terms. Rectification was refused, and Mr Hennessy was entitled to recover losses from...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Employment Contract Claim and Rectification Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Clause 12.2(b) of the Employment Deed was held to be part of Mr Hennessy's employment contract with Architectus, and Mr Hennessy was entitled to recover losses resulting from his early termination. The parties were to calculate the losses, with interest and costs to be addressed later.
Legal Topics
['terms of Contract' 'employment Contract Termination' 'minimum Two Year Term' 'reasonable Notice' 'consideration for Contract Variation' 'rectification' 'assessment of Damages']
['contract Law' 'employment Law' 'equity'] ['terms of Contract' 'employment Contract Termination' 'minimum Two Year Term' 'reasonable Notice' 'consideration for Contract Variation' 'rectification' 'assessment of Damages']

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

Employment Contract Claim and Rectification Dispute / Principal Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employment contract was terminable only after two years or terminable on reasonable notice.' "Whether the Employment Deed supplied after employment commenced became part of the parties' contract." 'Whether there was consideration for any variation of the 2 September 2008 agreement by the Employment Deed.' 'Whether the Employment Deed should be rectified to delete clause 12.2(b).' 'How damages for early termination should be assessed, including salary rate, Centrelink payments and earnings from current employment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Deed was supplied in response to the 2 September 2008 letter's reference to an employment agreement, was specific to Mr Hennessy's employment, and objectively became part of the employment contract despite being unsigned. Clause 12.2(b) was therefore binding and supported by consideration because Mr Hennessy accepted the supplementary terms. Architectus failed to prove a common continuing intention excluding the minimum two year term: Mr Hennessy had not believed his employment was terminable merely on reasonable notice and both parties objectively intended to be bound by the deed's unread terms. Rectification was refused, and Mr Hennessy was entitled to recover losses from...

Court Disposition

Clause 12.2(b) of the Employment Deed was held to be part of Mr Hennessy's employment contract with Architectus, and Mr Hennessy was entitled to recover losses resulting from his early termination. The parties were to calculate the losses, with interest and costs to be addressed later.

Orders

  • ["The parties should undertake a calculation of Mr Hennessy's losses in accordance with the reasons." 'The Court will then hear argument, if any, about interest or costs.']