Wong v National Australia Bank Limited [2021] FCA 671

Federal Court of Australia

Wong v National Australia Bank Limited [2021] FCA 671 File number: VID 903 of 2017

Judgment of: SNADEN J

Date of judgment: 22 June 2021

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – employment – adverse action – removal of applicant from position in which she was employed – announcement of removal to co-workers – subsequent termination of applicant's employment – whether the applicant was subjected to adverse action by the respondents in contravention of s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) – whether applicant made complaints or inquiries amounting to the exercise of "workplace rights" pursuant to s 341 of the FW Act – whether adverse action was taken because the applicant had exercised workplace rights – operation of statutory presumption in s 361 of the FW Act – identification of the person or people who decided to engage in adverse action – whether corporate state of mind resided (or partly resided) in a person who did not make a relevant decision – whether the second respondent was liable as an accessory to any statutory contravention committed by the first respondent – application dismissed DEFAMATION – publication of email communication by respondents to various personnel of the first respondent – whether communication conveyed defamatory imputations, namely that the applicant was incompetent or had misconducted herself – ordinary and natural meaning of words in communication – whether communication conveyed defamatory imputations by way of innuendo – whether the communication conveyed any other defamatory imputations not materially dissimilar to the imputations alleged – defence of qualified privilege – whether the respondents had a duty to send (or an interest in sending) the communication – whether the recipients of the published communication had a right to receive (or an interest in receiving) it – whether the communication ventured beyond the legitimate service of those duties or interests – whether the communication was actuated by malice – state of mind of the respondents – communication did not convey defamatory imputations as alleged – the communication did not contain defamatory imputations by way of innuendo – the communication was not actuated by malice – the publication of the communication was made on an occasion of qualified privilege – the applicant was not defamed