Menzies v Scott [2006] NFSC 6

Menzies v Scott [2006] NFSC 6

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by refusing to consider clause 10 of the employment contract on the basis that it was outside the scope of the Employment Act 1988 (NI). The exclusive services condition was a matter in relation to employment and had to be considered. Mr Scott knowingly breached that condition by taking employment with Café Pacifica, a competing business, after the appellants refused to vary the contract. That breach amounted to wilful disobedience of a reasonable direction and justified summary dismissal, so no payment in lieu of notice was payable. In any event, the contract limited payment or forfeiture in lieu of notice to one week's pay, not four weeks' wages.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Employment Law Appeal / Appeal From Determination of the Employment Tribunal in Matter ET 2 of 2005
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal determination set aside; no order made in the Tribunal matter; respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.
Legal Topics
['employment Contract' 'exclusive Services Condition' 'summary Dismissal' 'wilful Disobedience' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'restraint of Trade' 'employment Tribunal Jurisdiction']
['employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['employment Contract' 'exclusive Services Condition' 'summary Dismissal' 'wilful Disobedience' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'restraint of Trade' 'employment Tribunal Jurisdiction']

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 Law Appeal / Appeal From Determination of the Employment Tribunal in Matter ET 2 of 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Employment Tribunal erred in law by treating clause 10 of the employment contract as outside the scope of the Employment Act 1988 (NI).' 'Whether breach of the exclusive services condition could amount to wilful disobedience of a reasonable direction of the employer justifying summary dismissal.' 'If summary dismissal was not justified, what amount was payable to the respondent in lieu of notice.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Employment Tribunal erred in law by refusing to consider clause 10 of the employment contract on the basis that it was outside the scope of the Employment Act 1988 (NI). The exclusive services condition was a matter in relation to employment and had to be considered. Mr Scott knowingly breached that condition by taking employment with Café Pacifica, a competing business, after the appellants refused to vary the contract. That breach amounted to wilful disobedience of a reasonable direction and justified summary dismissal, so no payment in lieu of notice was payable. In any event, the contract limited payment or forfeiture in lieu of notice to one week's pay, not four weeks' wages.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Employment Tribunal determination set aside; no order made in the Tribunal matter; respondent ordered to pay the appellants' costs of the appeal.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'The determination of the Employment Tribunal in matter ET 2 of 2005 be set aside.' 'In lieu thereof it be determined that no order be made in that matter.' "The respondent pay the appellants' costs of the appeal."]