Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1666

Federal Court of Australia

Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1666 File number: VID 653 of 2018

Judgment of: STEWARD J

Date of judgment: 18 November 2020

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – termination of employment – where applicant through his company developed ride sharing app – where that company assigned associated intellectual property to newly incorporated first respondent after due diligence conducted by third respondent – where applicant appointed as C.E.O. of first respondent – where minority of shares in first respondent issued to applicant – where majority of shares in first respondent issued to second and third respondents – where first respondent's financial performance following assignment of intellectual property fell below expectations of second and third respondents – where functionality of app fell below expectations of second and third respondents – where second and third respondents discovered that applicant's company did not own all intellectual property associated with app before assignment – where applicant subsequently dismissed as C.E.O. – where applicant and second and third respondents each agreed to step down as directors of first respondent and to sell all shares for $1 – where applicant made series of alleged complaints or inquiries to second and third respondents prior to dismissal as C.E.O. – where applicant allegedly worked pursuant to consultancy agreement following dismissal as C.E.O. and end of associated notice period – whether applicant exercised workplace rights – whether applicant made "complaints" or "inquiries" for purposes of s. 341(c)(ii) of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth.) – whether complaints or inquiries "in relation to" applicant's employment as C.E.O. for purposes of s. 341(c)(ii) – whether applicant "able" to make complaints or inquiries for purposes of s. 341(c)(ii) – whether adverse action taken "because" of applicant exercising workplace rights – whether s. 358 breached because applicant dismissed in order to be engaged as independent contractor to perform same or substantially same work under contract for services CORPORATIONS – oppression – whether conduct of respondents oppressive to unfairly prejudicial to or unfairly discriminatory against applicant as member of first respondent whether in that capacity or any other capacity for purposes of s. 232 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth.) EQUITY – unconscionable conduct – where applicant allegedly subject to special disadvantages including mental health issues – where applicant alleged respondents aware of mental health issues and other special disadvantages – whether conduct of respondents towards applicant unconscionable within meaning of unwritten law for purposes of s. 20 of Australian Consumer Law COSTS – whether power to award costs under s. 570 of Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth.) should be exercised as against applicant