The plaintiff pursued compensation for loss, damage and injury allegedly suffered as a result of victimisation caused by his former employer, ERM. The plaintiff claims his whistleblower disclosures were improperly revealed by the thirteen defendants, which concluded in alleged detrimental conduct.
The Court rejected the plaintiff’s claim that the element of reasonableness under s 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) refers to underlying facts unknown to a discloser because this would be contrary to the purpose of the whistleblower reporting and protections. Further, the first defendant was not estopped from raising an argument about the proper construction of s 1317AA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), as a consequence of prior dealings with ERM. The Court upheld all but one of the first defendant’s pleading complaints and accepted that a causal link between the alleged conduct and loss must be pleaded by the plaintiff. The Court directed the parties to provide draft minutes of order and granted leave to re-plead.
Damian Clothier QC (leading E L Hoiberg) appeared for the first defendent/applicant, instructed by Clayton Utz.
The judgment is published here.