//
[2025] FCA 125
General information, not legal advice.
Federal Court of Australia
2025-02-28
Feutrill J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to his role as joint MD of Primobius. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[45] "It was my view at the time and remains my view that the strategic risks were more pressing and important because of the potential consequences to the Respondent as publicly listed company. I was also concerned that the Respondent was not acting in compliance with its ASX requirements as to governance and disclosure."
Inadmissible opinion evidence and legal conclusion to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of the statement, i.e. that Primobius was not acting in compliance with its ASX obligations.
[No objection on the basis of opinion where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
The Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to his role as joint MD of Primobius. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[54] "...which made no sense as both were at the same location, and Krenn should have signed with "i.A."."
Speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of the statement.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
The Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to his role as joint MD of Primobius. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[54] "This contradiction strongly suggests her signature on the acceptance letter was forged."
Speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of the statement.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
The Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to his role as joint MD of Primobius. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
(d) ...allowing SMS to continue operations without any accountability.
(e) ... As a result, SMS was able to maintain control and resist efforts to address the governance deficiencies, further undermining the joint venture's integrity.
(f) ... This failure to act allowed SMS to further entrench its position within the joint venture, placing the Respondent at a strategic disadvantage."
Speculative, conclusory and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these statements.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[60] "... Her response appeared dismissive, particularly in how she undermined my approach to transparency and communication, asserting her own views as superior without engaging with my input. Purdie's email also exhibited a controlling tone, directing how team routines should be structured and implying that her experience of best practices outweighed mine. Additionally, she seemed to avoid further written exchanges by suggesting we discuss the matter in person, which came across as a way to sidestep addressing the issues in detail."
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to his participation in the conversation and his role as joint MD of Primobius. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Further as evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how he read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[62] "On 5 July 2024, I learned that Jennifer Purdie had manipulated the communication flow discussed in paragraph 61..."
A matter for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the contents of the documents referred to which support the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[62] "... Purdie... bypassed the collaborative process by disregarding my role and direct involvement in addressing Yew's concerns."
A matter for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the contents of the documents referred to which support the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[63] "By being excluded from, these meetings, it not only prevented me from participating in critical discussions, but it also obstructed my ability to fulfil my fiduciary responsibilities as Managing Director of Primobius."
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the asserted fact that he was excluded from the meetings The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[66] "After reading the WhatsApp message, it became clear to me that the termination of Prassas' contractor agreement had already been determined without me, even though Prassas was in my team and had been essential to the success of my team. The message also confirmed that Purdie had engaged in face-to-face meetings with Siemon."
Opinion/conclusory summary of the WhatsApp message that is attached to Mr Reiche's affidavit at pages 568-572 of Exhibit CGR-1.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the contents of the documents referred to which support the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
(a) an effect of undermining my position, including undermining my leadership by bypassing me to speak directly with my reports, excluding me from meetings, not including or removing my responses from email chains, and interfering in the employment of my team and disagreeing with my management decisions, as well as setting unreasonable workload expectations on me, As well as my concerns about her actual conduct, I was concerned that these actions were in themselves indicative of poor governance and had to potential to adversely affect the Respondent and its shareholders. I was also concerned that the decisions which I have described above where not made with the interests of the Respondent and its shareholders at heart, but rather in retaliation for the disclosures that I had raised at the board meetings and briefings, and associated correspondence.
(b) Purdie was also placing pressure on me to modify the classification of high-risk items in the risk register.
(i) ... However, Purdie consistently downplayed several serious risks I had raised and required ongoing revisions that delayed the completion of the document...
(ii) ... Her insistence on constant revisions appeared to undermine the importance of the risks I highlighted, leaving the Risk Register incomplete for an extended period."
Conclusory and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the contents of the documents referred to which support the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
(c) Modifying the classification of high-risk items in the risk register would have the effect of compromising the risk management process, undermine transparency, and also place me at risk of being blamed if those risks eventuated, even though they resulted from decisions that predated my employment.
Speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the consequences of the actions described which support the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
(d) ... Such a direction was contrary to the Chief Executive Officer's and Chairman's duty in the face of such information, and also in breach of disclosure and government requirements of the ASX and Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). This could expose the Respondent to prosecution or civil liability.
Irrelevant, conclusory and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of an asserted fact, i.e. contrary to directors duties and breach of certain legal requirements.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception having regard to the nature of the direction given which supports the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
"72. On 11 July 2024, I attended a follow-up meeting with Smith and Kelsall to discuss the next steps for an independent investigation into my whistleblower disclosure. At the beginning of the meeting, both Smith and Kelsall expressed concern for my well-being, acknowledging the stress that could arise from making a whistleblower disclosure. They assured me that the company would support me throughout the process, including providing medical assistance if necessary.
73. During this meeting, Kelsall stated, "We take your disclosure seriously, and we believe it's authentic," and acknowledged the governance failures I had highlighted, including those around forgery and high-risk matters. Smith also raised concerns about whether the company's whistleblower policy provided sufficient protection, particularly in light of him saying that he fact that some of the issues I had raised were already known within the company. He referred back to our previous discussion on 9 July 2024 noting that he had shared these contractual and asymmetrical risks with the Board, which resulted in pushback from Cole. I strongly disagreed with the suggestion that prior awareness diminished the importance of the disclosure and emphasized that my aim was to ensure action would be taken on these long-standing risks. It was agreed that I would provide further documentation, including details about the forgery incident, and that an independent investigation would be launched. I prepared a contemporaneous file note of that meeting which sets out the effect of what was discussed in that meeting. A copy of that file note is at pages 616-617 of Exhibit CGR-1.
74. Following the disclosure meetings on 9 July 2024 and 11 July 2024, I made several attempts to set up a follow-up meeting with Smith and Kelsall to discuss the progress of the investigation and next steps. However, I was unable to schedule a meeting due to their busy schedules and the explanations provided to me that upcoming board meetings, a Primobius visit, Risk Register updates, and an Audit were priorities.
75. Kelsall, who had just started his role on 1 July 2024, was new to the company, but he shared with me on several occasions that he believed something "nuclear" was happening within the Respondent. He expressed belief in my disclosures and promised to get to the truth. Kelsall also explained that we couldn't change everything at once and asked me for patience, as well as support by providing information on what was ongoing and where the true risks lay."
Relevant to the knowledge of the Respondent that the Applicant had made the protected disclosures; the knowledge of the Respondent as to the effect of the disclosures,
The paragraphs are also relevant to the allegation by Ms Purdie that the Applicant was dismissed with immediate effect and not put on "gardening leave" when they were aware of the adverse effects visited upon the Applicant subsequent to making the disclosure, including stress; and the conduct of the Respondent seized with the knowledge demonstrated by the paragraphs both on the question of liability and damages, including exemplary damages.
Evidence is admitted on the basis that it is a point for submission on relevance.
[76] "On July 16, 2024, there was an instance of interference in Primobius' recruitment process and my fiduciary responsibilities as Managing Director."
Conclusory, and ultimately an issue for the Court to determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[76] "(c)... Purdie... ought to have been fully aware of the staffing needs and approved recruitment decisions. Her expression of surprise was disingenuous and contradicted her prior knowledge."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Paragraph struck out because the admissibility of them is not pressed.
[79] "... This lack of response was concerning, given Purdie's involvement in overseeing several project aspects at the Respondent."
Conclusory and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[80] "...Purdie's review of the draft undermined the independence of the audit and indicated a potential conflict of interest."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[81] "... This raised concerns that Purdie had influenced the report before I had a chance to review it, further compromising the audit's independence."
Speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[83] "... This email summarized the key issues raised in the Health Check audit report. He expressed concern that no Basis and Design (Engineering) existed, and that the 30 model was being treated as the "sole source of truth." Smith also pointed out that Straughton was unaware of any verification processes for the 30 model and highlighted the lack of commentary on the project schedules provided to the auditor. ..."
Conclusory summary of the email that is attached to Mr Reiche's affidavit at pages 690-695 of Exhibit CGR-1.
Pressed on basis that the Applicant's perception and understanding as to the effect of the email informs the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Paragraph struck out because the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations for admissibility are not accepted.
[84] "In these minutes, Cole summarized the Health Check audit report as having "no red flags" and stated that the findings should be viewed as recommendations rather than identifying any major issues."
Conclusory summary of the email that is attached to Mr Reiche's affidavit at pages 696-700 of Exhibit CGR-1.
This email thread and attachments speak for themselves.
If not, admissible on basis of Kane's Hire Pty Ltd v Anderson Aviation Australia Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 381 noting differing view in Chen v Chu [2024] NSWSC 1139 **(**Hammerschlag CJ in Eq) at [262] - [269]:
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[84] "This interpretation was misleading and conflicted with the concerns raised by lvanova and Smith and also my internal Due Diligence Report."
Conclusory and inadmissible opinion evidence to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[88] "I later realized that the finance team, knowing about the delegation change, forwarded the invoice to Purdie without informing me or allowing me to review it first. This led to concerns about the lack of clear communication in the approval process.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[89] "...The absence of communication and transparency in this matter led to confusion and concerns about my role in the approval process."
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[91] "... I took this additional request to provide the project deliveries again as a reason to terminate Prassas' contractor agreement earlier than agreed."
Speculative, conclusory, and inadmissible opinion evidence.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted not as a submission but how the Applicant read it and understood it at the time he received it.
[92] "In this email, I detailed the exclusion from leadership events, the reduction of my delegation of authority, difficult and tense interactions with Di Virgilio and requested to file them on my employment record, and the continued unreasonable work expectations from Purdie placed on me."
Conclusory summary of the email that is attached to Mr Reiche's affidavit at pages 797-801 of Exhibit CGR-1.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Noted, not pressed other than as evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[94] "...After the meeting, I replied to Smith and Kelsall expressing my concern about the lack of updates on the progress of the investigation since my whistleblower disclosure on July 9, 2024."
Pressed. Directly relevant to the respondent's failure to adhere to its own Whistleblower Policy when it was aware of, at the very least, the 9 July disclosure.
The commentary is not admitted as the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations are not accepted. The documents will be received in evidence.
[94] "... Which was becoming obvious to other staff."
Inadmissible opinion evidence without any foundation.
Paragraph struck out because the admissibility of them is not pressed.
[96] "...I also reiterated that the detrimental conduct I had experienced was likely tied to my April 2024 disclosure, especially after Purdie became Chief Operating Officer Smith advised me to clearly document each claim for the investigation to proceed efficiently."
Irrelevant and conclusory to the extent this evidence is relied on to prove the existence or truth of these assertions.
[No objection where the purpose of this evidence is to identify the basis for Mr Reiche's reasonably held belief or suspicion concerning the subject matter of the disclosure.]
Pressed. When read with the rest of the paragraph it and the Applicant's perception as to the reasons for the detrimental conduct.
The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Evidence is admitted on the basis that the statement is not received as evidence of the truth of facts, but as evidence of the witness's subjective state of mind.
[97].."... I reiterated that everything necessary to begin the investigation had been provided, as disclosed in my whistleblower report. I formally requested that the investigation proceed in accordance with the protections and guidelines outlined in the company's whistleblower policy, and I offered to provide any additional details or clarification as needed during the course of the investigation."
Relevant to the knowledge of the Respondent that the Applicant had made the protected disclosures; the knowledge of the Respondent as to the effect of the disclosures,
Evidence as to the Respondent's failure to adhere to its own Whistle-blower Policy
The conduct of the Respondent seized with the knowledge demonstrated by the paragraph both on the question of liability and damages, including exemplary damages
The commentary is not admitted as the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations are not accepted. The documents will be received in evidence.
[98] "...and requested confirmation that these investigations would proceed promptly. I haven't received any response."
Relevant to the knowledge of the Respondent that the Applicant had made the protected disclosures; the knowledge of the Respondent as to the effect of the disclosures,
Evidence as to the Respondent's failure to adhere to its own Whistle-blower Policy
The conduct of the Respondent seized with the knowledge demonstrated by the paragraph both on the question of liability and damages, including exemplary damages
The commentary is not admitted as the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations are not accepted. The documents will be received in evidence.
[99] "...following up on my whistleblower disclosure and the framework for the investigation.... I reiterated the need for an investigation under the appropriate policies, including the Whistleblower Protection Policy, Discrimination, Harassment and Bullying Policy, and the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). I also emphasized that my role was to report my concerns and that I was not required to conduct my own investigation. Given the detrimental impact on my health, I requested that the investigation proceed promptly."
Relevant to the knowledge of the Respondent that the Applicant had made the protected disclosures; the knowledge of the Respondent as to the effect of the disclosures,
Evidence as to the Respondent's failure to adhere to its own Whistle-blower Policy
The conduct of the Respondent seized with the knowledge demonstrated by the paragraph both on the question of liability and damages, including exemplary damages
The commentary is not admitted as the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations are not accepted. The documents will be received in evidence.
[102] "...This differential treatment, especially considering my whistleblower status, indicates targeted, detrimental conduct designed to harm me financially and professionally. It also appears that the Respondent deliberately sought to terminate me immediately to avoid the additional protection I would have received during my notice period, particularly regarding my whistleblower protections."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Pressed as the Applicant's perception as to a matter by a person in a position to make the perception. The opinion is rationally based and directly probative of an asserted fact, and the Applicant's state of mind when making the protected disclosures.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Paragraph struck out because the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations for admissibility are not accepted.
[107] "Notwithstanding that I consider that the termination of my employment was in part at least motivated by the Respondent's knowledge that I had made protected whistleblower disclosures, and amounted to detrimental conduct that permits the Court to order that I be reinstated to my position, the decision to not permit me to work out my three month contractual notice period, but rather pay it out in lieu (as per the Employment Contract) was in itself detrimental action because it would permit me a further 3 months on top of the 60 day period to attempt to obtain a new sponsor and commensurate employment."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Pressed. Contextual to the evidence as to the detriment caused by the failure to allow him to work out his notice period or go on gardening leave,
Paragraph struck out because the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations for admissibility are not accepted.
[110] "...in acting to my detriment after I made the protected disclosures..."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Paragraph struck out because the admissibility of them is not pressed.
[113] "...one of the main protagonists who have engaged in or been involved in the decisions made by the Respondent which have caused me detriment, as..."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Paragraph struck out because the admissibility of them is not pressed.
[114] "...are superior to those enjoyed by Purdie... cannot be in the best interests of the Respondent or its shareholders."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Paragraph struck out because the admissibility of them is not pressed.
[115] "...so I believe that I was made redundant due to my whistleblower actions."
Conclusory, speculative and inadmissible opinion evidence.
These are matters for submissions - for the Court to ultimately determine.
Evidence as to the Applicant's state of mind and evidence identifying the basis for his reasonably held concerns which informs the reasons why he made the disclosures
Paragraph struck out because the grounds of objection are sound and the applicant's explanations for admissibility are not accepted.
Reiche
Neometals Ltd
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Right Association Ltd [1973] HCA 36; 129 CLR 99
Australian Licensed Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd [2011] FMCA 58; 201 IR 441
Australian Red Cross Society v Queensland Nurses' Union of Employees [2019] FCAFC 215; 273 FCR 332
Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union v. R.J. Gilbertson (Queensland) Pty Ltd [1988] FCA 754
Blair v Australian Motor Industries Ltd [1982] FCA 145; 61 FLR 283
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; 248 CLR 500
CIC Insurance Ltd v Bankstown Football Club Ltd [1997] HCA 2; 187 CLR 384
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32; 253 CLR 169
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union of Australia [2007] FCAFC 18; 157 FCR 329
Community & Public Sector Union v Telstra Corporation Ltd [2000] FCA 844; 99 IR 238
Construction, Forestry, Maritime, Mining and Energy Union v Personnel Contracting Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 1; 275 CLR 165
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clermont Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1014; 253 IR 166
Country Care Group Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (No 2) [2020] FCAFC 44; 275 FCR 377
Director General, Department of Education and Training v MT [2006] NSWCA 270; 67 NSWLR 237
Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 251 CLR 640
Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd [2001] FCAFC 1804; 129 IR 251
Federal Commissioner of Taxation v Consolidated Media Holdings Ltd [2012] HCA 55; 250 CLR 503
Fitzgerald v Masters [1956] HCA 53; 95 CLR 420
Hodkinson v Commonwealth [2011] FMCA 171; 207 IR 129
IW v City of Perth [1997] HCA 30; 191 CLR 1
Llewellyn v Nine Network Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 836; 154 FCR 293
Maritime Union of Australia v Geraldton Port Authority [1999] FCA 899; 93 FCR 34
Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission [1995] UKPC 5; [1995] 2 AC 500
Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 101
Mount Bruce Mining Pty Ltd v Wright Prospecting Pty Ltd [2015] HCA 37; 256 CLR 104
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas [2004] HCA 35; 218 CLR 451
Patrick Stevedores Operations No 2 Pty Ltd v Maritime Union of Australia [1998] HCA 30; 195 CLR 1
Parker v Comptroller-General of Customs [2009] HCA 7; 83 ALJR 494; 252 ALR 619; 71 ATR 23
Pearce v WD Peacock & Co Ltd [1917] HCA 28; 23 CLR 199
Rinehart v Welker [2011] NSWCA 403; 93 NSWLR 311
Rush v Nationwide News Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 357; 359 ALR 473
Quinlan v ERM Power Ltd [2021] QSC 35; 7 QR 377
Robinson v BMF Pty Ltd (in liq) (No 2) [2022] FCA 1191
The Community and Public Sector Union v Commonwealth of Australia [2006] FCAFC 176; 157 IR 470
Toll (FGCT) Pty Ltd v Alphapharm Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 52; 219 CLR 165
Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd [2005] HCA 17; 221 CLR 522
[T]he modern approach to statutory interpretation (a) insists that the context be considered in the first instance, not merely at some later stage when ambiguity might be thought to arise, and (b) uses "context" in its widest sense to include such things as the existing state of the law and the mischief which, by legitimate means such as those just mentioned, one may discern the statute was intended to remedy [Attorney-General v Prince Ernest Augustus of Hanover [1957] AC 436 at 461, cited in K & S Lake City Freighters Pty Ltd v Gordon & Gotch Ltd [1985] HCA 48; (1985) 157 CLR 309 at 312, 315; [1985] HCA 48; 60 ALR 509]. Instances of general words in a statute being so constrained by their context are numerous. In particular, as McHugh JA pointed out in Isherwood v Butler Pollnow Pty Ltd [(1986) 6 NSWLR 363 at 388], if the apparently plain words of a provision are read in the light of the mischief which the statute was designed to overcome and of the objects of the legislation, they may wear a very different appearance. Further, inconvenience or improbability of result may assist the court in preferring to the literal meaning an alternative construction which, by the steps identified above, is reasonably open and more closely conforms to the legislative intent.
(1985) 157 CLR 309
(1976) 12 ALR 605