Bell and Berg v Macquarie Bank Ltd and Another [2002] NSWIRComm 235

Bell and Berg v Macquarie Bank Ltd and Another [2002] NSWIRComm 235

The applicants' contracts of employment and related arrangements were not unfair, harsh, or unconscionable under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The alleged representations and business plans did not form binding contractual terms, applicants failed to establish constructive dismissal or procedural unfairness requiring contract variation, and claims for bonus/share options lacked merit. The claims are dismissed; s109A precluded any unfair dismissal claims disguised as unfair contract claims.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment Following Hearing
Outcome
Claims dismissed
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'contracts of Employment' 'banking Industry' 'jurisdiction' 'taping of Conversations' 'constructive Dismissal' 'notice of Termination' 'bonus Scheme' 'share Options' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'contracts of Employment' 'banking Industry' 'jurisdiction' 'taping of Conversations' 'constructive Dismissal' 'notice of Termination' 'bonus Scheme' 'share Options' 'procedural Fairness' 'costs']

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

Application Under Section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Final Judgment Following Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employment contracts and arrangements were unfair, harsh or unconscionable under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'Whether alleged representations formed terms of the contracts' 'Whether applicants were constructively dismissed' 'Whether bonus and share option schemes were unfair' 'Whether procedural deficiencies in termination rendered contracts unfair' 'Whether claims are precluded by s109A as unfair dismissal claims in disguise']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' contracts of employment and related arrangements were not unfair, harsh, or unconscionable under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. The alleged representations and business plans did not form binding contractual terms, applicants failed to establish constructive dismissal or procedural unfairness requiring contract variation, and claims for bonus/share options lacked merit. The claims are dismissed; s109A precluded any unfair dismissal claims disguised as unfair contract claims.

Court Disposition

Claims dismissed

Orders

  • ["Applicants' claims dismissed" "Applicants to bear respondents' costs as agreed or assessed unless otherwise determined within 21 days"]