NSW Court of Appeal Upholds Unjust Contract Ruling
📌 In brief
The NSW Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision that a settlement and release deed was unjust. The Court found that the deed placed an unreasonable burden on the employee without being necessary to protect the employer's interests.
📖 Technical summary
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the primary judge's decision that the deed was an unjust contract under the Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW).
📚 Full judgment
The summary, holding and questions above are VadeLab’s own material. The official decision itself is published by the court, and we do not reproduce it on this page.
📄 Read the full judgment⚖️ View on the official court website ↗
⚖️ What tends to weigh in cases like this
✅ Tends to be accepted
- The deed was unjust because it imposed an unreasonable burden on the former employee without being reasonably necessary to protect the employer's legitimate interests.
- The employer's demand for payment was a continuation of bullying and harassment, which influenced the former employee when signing the deed.
- The obligation to pay 100% of revenue to the employer was disproportionate to the former employee's minor asserted wrongdoing.
❌ Tends to be rejected
- The employer's challenge to the primary judge's factual findings was unsuccessful.
- The employer's argument that the primary judge erred by not considering the deed's partial performance was rejected.
- The employer's claim for judgment failed because there was no evidence of a causal link between the former employee's actions and clients moving.
- The employer's late attempt to add a new ground of appeal regarding section 6(2) of the Act was refused.
Patterns observed in similar cases in this collection — every case is unique.
❓ Frequently asked questions
What was the dispute about?
The dispute was about whether a settlement and release deed was unjust, specifically focusing on whether it imposed an unreasonable burden on the employee.
Which laws or rules were applied?
The Contracts Review Act 1980 (NSW) sections 4, 6, 7, and 9 were applied.
Was the decision for or against the person who brought the case?
The decision was against the person who brought the case, affirming the primary judge's ruling that the deed was unjust.
What evidence or documents mattered?
The judgment mentions the settlement and release deed, the historical dealings between the parties, and the specific clauses within the deed.