Blyth Chemicals Limited v Bushnell [1933] HCA 8

Foll Rhino Appl

S repos ara v fiterala Po

fuer ar HIGH COURT [1933.

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

BLYTH CHEMICALS LIMITED = F; . APPELLANT; Derrenpant, AND BUSHNELL . E b i a : 7 . REsponpeENt. PLAINTIFF,

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

H.C. or A. Employer and Employee—Wrongful dismissal—Employee controlling company being

1933.

ey Metnourne, March 22; April Starke, Dixon,

Evatt and MeTiernan JJ.

a potential competitor—Reasonable apprehension of competition—No competition in fact.

'The respondent, who was the manager of the appellant's business of manu- facturing lead products, was dismissed by the appellant from its employ- ment. The substantial grounds for such dismissal were that the respondent had during the period of his employment, without the knowledge or consent of the appellant or its directors, become chairman of directors for life and sole

or principal shareholder with a controlling interest in a company which was a

potential rival in business of the appellant, and that the respondent would not procure a covenant from such company not to compete with the appellant. Other items of alleged misconduct became known to the appellant after the respondent's dismissal. In an action for damages for wrongful dismissal the

trial Judge refused to find that the circumstances justified the dismissal of the respondent. On appeal to the High Court, j

Held, that the burden of proving a justification for the dismissal was upon the appellant, and that the decision should not be interfered with.

Per Starke and Evatt JJ: The mere apprehension that an employee will act in a manner incompatible with the due and faithful performance of his duty affords no ground for dismissing him; he must be guilty of some conduc! itself incompatible with his duty and the confidential relation between him: and his employer.