Login
Fired lawyer accuses boutique firm of kicking him out
A Melbourne lawyer alleged the owner of a boutique firm verbally abused him, locked him out of the office and then fired him.
Naomi Neilson
Gagandeep Jassal, who now runs his own firm, accused Melbourne boutique firm Saundh Singh & Smith Lawyers of unfairly terminating him in March this year after allegedly subjecting him to “verbal abuse, bullying and harassment” and a failure to pay his entitlements.
In the application, Jassal claimed he went to lunch on 4 March after a dispute with principal lawyer Gurpal Singh over files.
When he returned, Jassal said the office lights were off and the doors were locked, which made him feel “not welcome”.
The next day, Jassal alleged he went to see an “agitated” Singh in his office and was told to “give me the keys and leave the office”.
Singh told Fair Work that Jassal was the one who resigned and that there were “performance issues, [Jassal] had taken unauthorised leave, and had set up a law firm … while still employed”.
He said that on 4 March he had a “migraine” and attempted to wait in the office for 50 minutes for Jassal to return from lunch.
The next day, he called Jassal into his office because he allegedly did “not take a sufficient interest in the matters he worked on”, his work was in “shambles”, and because he had not offered assistance.
Singh claimed Jassal then took the office keys from his pocket, placed them on the desk, and said he was “leaving”.
“On the limited evidence I have heard, it is not possible to make a firm or detailed assessment of the matters,” Perica said.
“The difficulties of making a merit assessment are compounded by the contest between the parties as to whether the applicant resigned or whether the respondent terminated his employment.”
Jassal told Fair Work he did not file the application in time because of his daughter’s medical emergency and because he had hoped to resolve the matter with the firm without litigation.
In submissions, Jassal said he sent an email to Singh setting out his version of events to “address the circumstances surrounding his unfair termination … and rights under employment law” and to “formally request” the payment of his entitlements.
In response, a member of the firm said they would calculate his owed entitlements and a “figure will be forwarded to you in the coming days”. Jassal claimed he never received this payment or an update.
Two days after the proceedings were commenced, the firm responded to another email, promising Jassal it would “provide you with the final outstanding amount” by a date in early April.
Commissioner Perica said there was “some logic” to the pursuit of settlement being a reason for the delay “if an offer and counteroffer had been made and the matter was moving towards a resolution”.
But this was not enough to accept the late application.
“The settlement discussions cannot be an exceptional circumstance justifying a delay because the settlement negotiations could have continued once the proceeding was commenced,” Perica said.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
