Appeal court reopens a 2016 exit deal - and hands HR a deed-drafting lesson
A "Flirty Thirty" birthday party, a social media video, and a deed of release have left HR with a clear lesson on how exit agreements really work.
The New South Wales Court of Appeal has partly upheld an appeal by former Colliers International real estate agent Matthew Hudson, finding the company owes him commission on one of three disputed deals tied to his 2016 departure. The decision, handed down on May 20, 2026, lands neatly in HR territory: it turns on how a separation deed interacts with an underlying commission policy, and what happens when the two are not lined up.
Hudson joined Colliers in October 2013 and was promoted to associate director, retail leasing, in February 2016. A year earlier, in June 2015, he had thrown a thirtieth birthday party themed "Huddo's Flirty Thirty." By June 2016, a video of the party had drawn media attention - coming, the judgment notes, while Colliers was already fielding coverage of sexual harassment allegations made against another employee. Hudson and the firm agreed to part ways. His supervisor, Michael Bate, led the negotiations for Colliers.
The exit was set out in a Deed of Release dated June 22, 2016, requiring Colliers to pay Hudson various amounts including commission on pending deals listed in Schedule 3. Three of those deals later became the dispute: a lease at the Overseas Passenger Terminal in Circular Quay, a Westfield Sydney rooftop lease, and a claimed Sumo Salad lease at St Collins Lane in Melbourne. Hudson sought $296,648 in unpaid commission plus consequential loss linked to a Paddington property purchase.
The District Court dismissed the claim in August 2025. On appeal, the central question was whether the deed locked in those commission amounts or whether the underlying Commissions, Bonuses & Profit Share Policy still applied - in particular, the clause requiring the client to pay the invoice in full before commission became payable.
Justice Kirk, with Chief Justice Bell and President Ward agreeing, ruled that the policy still applied, subject only to two express variations in the deed. For Circular Quay, where Colliers had agreed to a reduced fee with the client after a billing dispute, Hudson was entitled to commission only on the amount actually paid. For Sumo Salad, he could not produce evidence that any invoice had been issued or paid, and the claim failed. The Court rejected his attempt to argue that the evidentiary onus had shifted to Colliers, noting that he had issued a notice to produce and had not challenged what Colliers handed over.
Westfield was the win. Hudson had introduced the tenant to the landlord shortly before leaving. The talks fell over, then restarted 18 months later, and the lease was signed. Colliers was paid $200,000 in two instalments in 2018 and 2019. The primary judge had treated the later deal as "a different transaction." The Court of Appeal disagreed - the parties were the same ones Hudson had introduced, and Colliers itself accepted the reopened negotiations "did not involve the Appellant or the Respondent in any way."
His consequential loss claim was harder to save. Hudson's damages theory assumed he would have received the full $296,648 within two months of signing the deed, and used it to buy a more expensive Paddington home. With only the Westfield commission surviving - and the underlying revenue not paid until 2018 and 2019 - the loss-of-opportunity claim collapsed.
The practical signal for HR is about the architecture of separation agreements. Where exit deeds touch commissions, bonuses or any deferred payment, courts will generally read a reaffirmation of the underlying policy as importing the policy's preconditions, carve-outs notwithstanding. If the intention is to pay a fixed sum on a fixed date, the deed needs to say so plainly. Final orders on costs and interest are still to be determined.
