Event and Time
Event Description
Mr. Stephen Rodd's employment at Descon Group Australia Pty Ltd was terminated after his employer alleged he lacked authority to excuse an employee, Mr. Wavish, from work on 30 May 2020. Subsequently, Mr. Wavish commenced proceedings against Descon. In retaliation, Descon and its solicitors, Irish Bentley Lawyers (IBL), filed a cross-claim against both Mr. Wavish and Mr. Rodd, alleging Mr. Rodd acted without authority and engaged in misconduct, ultimately seeking damages.
Application and Claims
- Mr. Wavish claimed unlawful termination, arguing he was excused from attending work.
- Descon's defense included allegations of 49 unauthorized absences by Mr. Wavish.
- Descon's cross-claim sought damages against Mr. Wavish for breach of contract and against Mr. Rodd for allegedly approving unauthorized absences without the requisite authority.
Judicial Decisions
The Court held that Descon's cross-claim was filed vexatiously; it concluded that:
- Mr. Rodd did have the necessary authority to excuse Mr. Wavish.
- The cross-claim was intended to intimidate and harass Mr. Rodd.
- Indemnity costs were to be awarded against Descon and its solicitors, IBL, due to their failure to act consistently with the Australian Solicitor Conduct Rules.
Dispute Points and Legal Basis
Dispute Points
- Mr. Wavish's Claim: He argued his termination was unlawful as he had received authorization from Mr. Rodd to be absent from work.
- Descon's Defense: Contended that Mr. Rodd acted without authority and cited a history of 49 unauthorized absences as grounds for termination.
- Rodd's Defense: He articulated that he was directed to approve absences and had prior approval for all instances of absence, including the disputed date.
- Cross-Claim: Descon claimed Rodd's actions constituted breach of employment duties and sought damages, asserting Mr. Rodd acted with negligence and failed to abide by their leave policy.