Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20

Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner [2015] FCAFC 20

Mr Sautner's repeated and deliberate breaches of the employment contract, including bartering tickets for personal benefit, ARU ticketing misconduct, and disparagement of the CEO, constituted serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Further, as payment in lieu of notice was never made and the contract remained on foot, upon discovery of misconduct, MSL was entitled to terminate summarily under cl 7.2. The primary judge erred by not giving sufficient weight to the impact of these breaches on the trust relationship and employment contract.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['summary Dismissal' 'employment Termination' 'serious Misconduct' 'redundancy' 'fair Work Act Costs' 'employment Contract Construction' 'shepherd Principle']
['industrial Law' 'contracts'] ['summary Dismissal' 'employment Termination' 'serious Misconduct' 'redundancy' 'fair Work Act Costs' 'employment Contract Construction' 'shepherd Principle']

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 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the employee's conduct justified summary dismissal" 'Applicability of the principle in Shepherd v Felt and Textiles of Australia (1931) 45 CLR 359' 'Effect of payment in lieu of notice under contract' "Employer's entitlement to rely on serious misconduct not known at time of termination" 'Construction and application of s 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in relation to costs']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Sautner's repeated and deliberate breaches of the employment contract, including bartering tickets for personal benefit, ARU ticketing misconduct, and disparagement of the CEO, constituted serious misconduct justifying summary dismissal. Further, as payment in lieu of notice was never made and the contract remained on foot, upon discovery of misconduct, MSL was entitled to terminate summarily under cl 7.2. The primary judge erred by not giving sufficient weight to the impact of these breaches on the trust relationship and employment contract.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be allowed.' 'Order 1 of the orders of the County Court of Victoria made on 2 May 2014 be set aside.' 'Orders 1 to 3 of orders of the County Court of Victoria made on 6 June 2014 be set aside.' "In lieu thereof, order that the respondent's proceedings in the County Court of Victoria be dismissed with no...