Henshaw v Sqribe [2000] NSWIRComm 279

Henshaw v Sqribe [2000] NSWIRComm 279

The contract was unfair for failing to provide for redundancy, and the stock option plan was unfair for failing to address continued vesting upon redundancy. Six months' notice/pay and corresponding stock option vesting were determined to bring the arrangements within a fair range.

Parties
Applicant: Kim Henshaw; First Respondent: Sqribe Technologies Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Sqribe Technologies Corporation; Third Respondent: Brio Technology Incorporated
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Liability Judgment
Outcome
Declarations of unfairness and intention to make orders; parties to confer on terms of orders.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Redundancy, Termination of Employment, Stock Option Plans
Industrial Relations Employment Law Unfair Contracts Redundancy Termination of Employment Stock Option Plans

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Henshaw

Applicant

Sqribe Technologies Pty Limited

First Respondent

Sqribe Technologies Corporation

Second Respondent

Brio Technology Incorporated

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Liability Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the employment contract and stock option plan were unfair within the meaning of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 in the context of redundancy and termination
  2. 2 Whether the notice provision and lack of redundancy entitlement rendered the contract unfair
  3. 3 Whether the stock option plan operated unfairly on termination due to redundancy

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was unfair for failing to provide for redundancy, and the stock option plan was unfair for failing to address continued vesting upon redundancy. Six months' notice/pay and corresponding stock option vesting were determined to bring the arrangements within a fair range.

Court Disposition

Declarations of unfairness and intention to make orders; parties to confer on terms of orders.

Orders

  • Declaration that the contract was unfair for not providing for redundancy.
  • Declaration that the stock option plan was unfair for not addressing vesting in redundancy.