The Environmental Group Ltd v Bowd [2019] FCA 951

The Environmental Group Ltd v Bowd [2019] FCA 951

Mr Bowd did not succeed in his claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because his dismissal and suspension were not due to the exercise of any workplace right, but were instead due to his performance as CEO and the breakdown of relationship with the Board. His complaint to ASIC was not made in good faith and thus not a protected workplace right; nor did it meet the threshold for whistleblower protection. The EG parties’ claim for breach of contract for retention of property was upheld, but only nominal damages (if any) were appropriate as all property had been returned and no loss proved. The copyright infringement was established because the copying was not protected by s 43 of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceeding / Judgment on Liability, Prior to Final Orders on Damages and Penalties
Outcome
All claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (whistleblower provisions) by Mr Bowd are dismissed. The EG parties succeed in breach of contract (nominal damages/no loss), fail in detinue, succeed in copyright infringement (nominal damages only). Final orders to be agreed or further...
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'workplace Rights' 'adverse Action' 'whistleblower Protection' 'breach of Contract' 'detinue' 'copyright Infringement']
['industrial Law' 'corporations' 'contracts' 'copyright'] ['termination of Employment' 'workplace Rights' 'adverse Action' 'whistleblower Protection' 'breach of Contract' 'detinue' 'copyright Infringement']

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

Civil Proceeding / Judgment on Liability, Prior to Final Orders on Damages and Penalties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the employee exercised a workplace right for the purposes of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)' 'Whether the making of a complaint to ASIC constituted a protected disclosure under whistleblower provisions of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)' 'Whether adverse action was taken because of exercise of a workplace right' 'Whether the dismissal was due to taking personal leave (sick leave)' 'Whether there was a breach of contract by retention of company property after termination' 'Whether the employee infringed copyright by copying company data']

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bowd did not succeed in his claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) because his dismissal and suspension were not due to the exercise of any workplace right, but were instead due to his performance as CEO and the breakdown of relationship with the Board. His complaint to ASIC was not made in good faith and thus not a protected workplace right; nor did it meet the threshold for whistleblower protection. The EG parties’ claim for breach of contract for retention of property was upheld, but only nominal damages (if any) were appropriate as all property had been returned and no loss proved. The copyright infringement was established because the copying was not protected by s 43 of the...

Court Disposition

All claims under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (whistleblower provisions) by Mr Bowd are dismissed. The EG parties succeed in breach of contract (nominal damages/no loss), fail in detinue, succeed in copyright infringement (nominal damages only). Final orders to be agreed or further...

Orders

  • ['The parties are to file within 14 days consent orders giving effect to the reasons of this judgment, or if not agreed, submissions limited to four pages as to the form of final relief.']