Australia: Full Court Of The Federal Court Upholds Damages Award In Nikolich

Last Updated: 23 August 2007
Article by Andrew Cunningham

Yesterday, the Full Court of the Federal Court handed down its decision on the appeal in Goldman Sachs JB Were Services Pty Ltd v Nikolich [2007] FCAFC 120.

By majority, the Full Court upheld Justice Wilcox’s original decision – which awarded Mr Nikolich damages of around $500,000 (plus interest) (some two and a half years pay), essentially for psychological injury resulting from a breach of his employment contract.

However, the Court did overturn one part of Justice Wilcox’s decision – the original costs order in favour of Mr Nikolich.

The Court concluded that there was no power to award costs because (broadly speaking) the breach of contract claim was brought in the ‘accrued jurisdiction’ of the Federal Court in conjunction with claims under the Workplace Relations Act 1996, which contains restrictions on the award of costs.

But the Court did award Mr Nikolich 90% of his costs of the appeal itself.

The facts

Mr Nikolich commenced employment with Goldman Sachs JB Were (GSJBW) in May 2000 as an investment adviser. When he was offered employment, he was provided with a policy document entitled ‘Working with Us’ (Policy). The Policy included provisions on integrity, safety, harassment and grievance procedures. Mr Nikolich was required to sign and return a form acknowledging some of the provisions of the Policy.

Subsequently, under a new team based approach adopted by GSJBW, Mr Nikolich formed a team with two other investment advisors – called the ‘DKN Partnership’. They prepared a business plan (Business Plan), which was submitted to GSJBW. There was an income split between the three team members. The Business Plan provided that no clients would leave the DKN Partnership if a team member resigned.

One of the members of the team resigned.

Mr Nikolich’s manager, Mr Sutherland, then assigned most of the DKN Partnership’s investment advisers to another team – the ‘RSL Partnership’.

Implications for Employers

Employers can no longer assume that, if an employment contract has a notice of termination provision, they are relatively safe from a breach of contract claim.

Employers should carefully review their contracts and policies, as well as their procedures by which employees are given policies, and should seek legal advice. Consideration should also be given to the position of existing employees – not just new starters.

Employers should also bear in mind this decision when handling grievances. A prompt and thorough investigation can be very important.

In July 2003, Mr Nikolich filed a grievance against Mr Sutherland – asserting, amongst other things, that Mr Sutherland intimidated him. In December 2003, there was a report by GSJBW’s Human Resources section which rejected the allegations against Mr Sutherland. Mr Nikolich sought a review of this decision, but this did not resolve the grievance.

Some time later, in August 2004, Mr Nikolich left work on sick leave. In December 2004, Mr Nikolich’s solicitors advised that if he were to return to work this would have adverse consequences for his health.

GSJBW replied by saying it was clear that Mr Nikolich did not intend to return to work or was not able to return to work in the foreseeable future. In these circumstances, they regarded his employment as having been terminated.

Mr Nikolich brought proceedings on three bases:

  1. that GSJBW breached his contract of employment;
  2. that GSJBW unlawfully terminated his employment by reason of his mental disability, or his temporary absence from work because of illness, contrary to the Workplace Relations Act; and
  3. that GSJBW engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct contrary to sections 52 and 53 of the Trade Practices Act and also the Fair Trading Act (NSW).

The original decision of Justice Wilcox

The most significant part of the case was the breach of contract claim.

Justice Wilcox rejected the argument that the Business Plan amounted to a variation of the contract of employment.

However, he accepted that the Policy formed part of Mr Nikolich’s employment contract. He concluded this on the basis of a provision in the employment agreement that GSJBW ‘expected’ Mr Nikolich to comply with ‘office memoranda and instructions’. He also concluded that this meant that GSJBW was required to comply with the Policy, as well as Mr Nikolich.

He then concluded that GSJBW had breached various parts of the Policy – in particular:

  • the Policy provided that GSJBW would take every practical step to provide and maintain a healthy working environment for its employees (Safety Provision);
  • the Policy provided that ‘each person is able to work positively and be treated with respect and courtesy’ and that ‘all people within the … team will work together to prevent any unwelcome, uninvited and unwanted conduct’(Harassment Provision); and
  • the Policy included a grievance provision. Justice Wilcox decided that it was an implicit in the grievance procedure that GSJBW would carry out an adequate and timely investigation of the merit of any complaint or grievance (Grievance Provision).

In doing so, Justice Wilcox applied (and in some respects, extended) a Full Court Federal Court decision in Riverwood International Australia Pty Ltd v McCormick [2000] FCA 889 (Riverwood). However, he also showed a willingness to interpret broad statements of intent and philosophy as imposing far reaching contractually binding obligations.

Justice Wilcox concluded that the breaches of the Policy caused Mr Nikolich psychological damage including a major depressive disorder. While damages were ordinarily not recoverable for disappointment and distress, there was an exception for personal injury – which included psychiatric illness. Such damages were not too remote.

Justice Wilcox then assessed the damages as being:

  • lost income from the date of termination until the date of the decision – around two years of lost income; plus
  • loss of future earnings on the basis that it would take Mr Nikolich six months to find a new job. In this regard, he took the view that the resolution of the case would assist Mr Nikolich in overcoming his illness to the extent that he was able to secure employment elsewhere.

Justice Wilcox rejected the other claims. The reasons included:

  • while Mr Nikolich was dismissed by reason of mental illness, the decision was based on the inherent requirements of the job. An inherent requirement of the job was attending for work and carrying out the duties of the position. The letter from Mr Nikolich’s solicitors was a clear indication that Mr Nikolich was unfit for work and would not be returning to work immediately. This in turn amounted to a clear statement that Mr Nikolich was not able to fulfil the inherent requirements of his position; and
  • the misleading and deceptive conduct claim failed because any misleading conduct did not cause Mr Nikolich to suffer any loss.

The appeal

GSJBW appealed Justice Wilcox’s decision on breach of contract. The other parts of the decision were not subject to appeal.

The Full Court was comprised of Chief Justice Black, Justice Marshall and Justice Jessup. Each delivered a separate judgement, with Justice Jessup dissenting.

Each of the judges concluded that the Safety Provision formed part of Mr Nikolich’s contract of employment. Their reasoning differed.

Chief Justice Black took the view that, having regard to all of the circumstances, parts of the Policy were contractual (including the fact that the Policy was apparently given to Mr Nikolich at the time of the offer and also the language of the Policy).

Justice Marshall applied the decision in Riverwood – seeing no distinction between a requirement that an employee comply with policies (as in Riverwood) and a provision that the employee be ‘expected’ to comply with ‘office memoranda and instructions’.

Justice Jessup distinguished the decision in Riverwood but nonetheless regarded the Safety Provision as being contractual – particularly given that it was similar to the implied term at common law that an employer will take reasonable care for the safety of employees.

All judges overruled Justice Wilcox on the Harassment Provision and the Grievance Provision – finding that they did not form a part of Mr Nikolich’s contract. It is important to note that this part of the decision turned on the specific wording of the Harassment Provision and the Grievance Provision. Chief Justice Black, for example, described these provisions as being descriptive or advisory – rather than promissory.

However, it is important to appreciate that, if the wording of the Harassment Provision and the Grievance Provision was different, then the decision too could have been different.

The major difference between the majority and Justice Jessup concerned breach of the Safety Provision and damages.

Chief Justice Black and Justice Marshall decided GSJBW had breached the Safety Provision by failing to promptly investigate the grievance – especially having regard to Mr Nikolich’s delicate mental state at the time. In this regard, it took around five months between the grievance being filed and the rejection of Mr Nikolich’s grievance.

They also decided that this delay was at least partially responsible for Mr Nikolich’s psychological injury and that this psychological injury was foreseeable.

Interestingly, the Court did not find that the rejection of Mr Nikolich’s grievance was wrong – just that it took too long and that this caused Mr Nikolich psychological injury.

In dissent, Justice Jessup decided there was no breach of the Safety Provision. Amongst other things, there was no evidence that the delay in investigating the grievance led to Mr Nikolich suffering psychological injury. In fact, Justice Jessup suggested that, having regard to all the circumstances, a more urgent investigation might only have accelerated events.


The Full Court’s decision continues the resurgence of breach of contract claims in employment law.

This decision, together with the Full Court Federal Court decision of Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCAFC 101 (Walker) last year, represent – when measured in number of years pay – some of the largest damages awards in the history of Australian employment law. In this regard, they well exceed the types of damages awards under the New South Wales unfair contracts jurisdiction (although there were some cases where the quantum of damages was higher) and at common law for ‘reasonable notice’ claims.

The only real comparison is with a line of Federal Court cases in the late 1980s and early 1990s starting with the decision of Gregory v Phillip Morris (1988) 24 IR 397 – which were ultimately overruled by the High Court in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410.

It is also important to appreciate that Walker and Nikolich are decisions of one of the highest courts in the land – they carry considerable judicial weight and cannot be disregarded.

Nikolich continues the trend of finding employment policies to be contractual. Importantly, two judges regarded parts of the Policy as being contractual on the basis of the language of the Policy and the circumstances in which the Policy was provided to Mr Nikolich. They did not require that Mr Nikolich’s letter of appointment refer to policies to achieve this result.

However, Nikolich could have played out quite differently if the facts were only slightly different. For example:

  • in some States, restrictions on recovery of damages under workers compensation legislation may apply;
  • if the proceedings had been brought in a different court, and without the Workplace Relations Act 1996 claims, there would be no restrictions on costs; and
  • if the wording of the relevant policies was different, the Court may have concluded other parts of the policies were contractual.

Most importantly, for employers though, the risks highlighted in the Nikolich case can simply be avoided – with tightly drafted contracts and policies.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.