Supreme Court rejects partner's termination appeal
A former senior partner at a Big Four consulting firm lost his termination appeal after the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory upheld his former employer's decision to sack him for "Just Cause" following a bar altercation and earlier workplace misconduct.
The Supreme Court rejected the partner's arguments that his employer had breached its partnership agreement and confirmed that his proceedings would be dismissed, with an order that he pay the firm's costs.
"The plaintiff's claim fails. The claim is therefore dismissed,” the court concluded.
Christmas party complaint
The case stems from after the senior partner, who belonged to the firm's Transaction Tax team, became subject to the company's partnership regulations and workplace behaviour policies after rejoining the firm in late 2021.
The first incident took place in May 2022 at a deferred "Miami Vice"–themed Christmas party, where the employee made comments to a female partner that the company deemed inappropriate.
The complaint was summarised as comments to the effect that he thought she was beautiful, wanted to sleep with her, and that "most of [his] affairs are with married women."
An internal memorandum from the firm treated the behaviour as a breach of company policies and issued a "first and final warning."
"This memorandum serves as a first and final warning against further instances of inappropriate behaviour which may result in more significant sanctions, including termination," the memorandum read, as quoted in court.
Bar altercation to termination
The second incident happened in August 2023 after a fundraising event and later drinks at a bar in Sydney with colleagues.
The senior partner became involved in a confrontation with the bar manager over a missing jacket, with CCTV footage showing him pushing the manager with his hand and then bumping him with his chest. Police were called and he was charged with common assault.
The senior partner, however, did not promptly disclose the criminal charge to the company's Country Managing Partner or to the NSW Law Society, despite regulatory and professional obligations.
When they later learned of the charge, they interviewed the senior partner and reviewed the CCTV footage.
Despite the senior partner describing the incident as "innocuous," his employers decided to terminate his employment for "Just Cause" under the partnership agreement.
'Just Cause' termination upheld
In appealing his case, the senior partner argued that the "Just Cause" termination could not be upheld because the bar incident did not involve his conduct as a partner of the firm.
He further claimed that the termination was not made in good faith because an alternative course to put him on "garden leave" was available and provided for by his partnership agreement.
"Neither of these arguments demonstrates any breach of the partnership agreement and, as a consequence, the plaintiff's claim fails. The claim is therefore dismissed," the court ruled.
It noted that there was "nothing in the words of the definition of 'Just Cause' that limits its operation to conduct in the partner's work or conduct that might affect the ability of the partner to perform that work."
It added that it was "reasonably open within the scope of the definition of 'Just Cause'" to reach the opinion that the senior partner's continued employment was likely to harm significantly the interests of the firm.
