Login
Legal charity CEO wins ‘highly peculiar’ unlawful dismissal case
A judge criticised a Northern Territory legal charity for the unusual and “highly peculiar” excuse it used to unlawfully sack its CEO.
Naomi Neilson
North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA). Credit: Google Maps.
The termination of Priscilla Atkins from the role of CEO at the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA) on baseless fraud allegations was “legally ineffective”, the Federal Court’s Justice Natalie Charlesworth determined late last week.
Among other things, Atkins sought an injunction restraining NAAJA from terminating her employment, damages, and civil penalties.
Justice Charlesworth found the termination letter sent to Atkins claimed to afford her “procedural fairness in connection with a decision that had in fact already been made”.
“The evidence does not support a conclusion the few directors involved in that activity had a genuine desire to afford Atkins’ procedural fairness,” the Federal Court said.
NAAJA claimed the termination was based on the “bona fide” belief Atkins forged the signature of chairperson Colleen Rosas on her five-year renewal contract in June 2020, which saw Atkins’ annual salary increase to more than $350,000.
However, Justice Charlesworth said there was “no evidence” to suggest any director was alarmed Atkins turned up to work after June 2020 on an unapproved salary and without an approved contract.
Justice Charlesworth also noted there were “multiple performance reviews” held since that time and no red flags were ever raised.
“In light of those circumstances, Rosas’ allegation that she genuinely believed Atkins had affected a fraud on the board by securing for herself a renewal of her contract (and a pay rise to boot) without board approval is so highly peculiar that it invites careful scrutiny as to its genuineness,” Justice Charlesworth said.
Justice Charlesworth found Rosas spent her cross-examination “evaluating her responses with an eye to the consequences of her answers” and at times “gave evidence that was not in response to a question, but readily volunteered information to proactively correct the impression she perceived might be given by a document”.
In a statement following the decision, NAAJA said it “maintains a strong view that the board was justified in its decision to seek to terminate the employment of the former CEO”.
“It is surprised and disappointed by [the] decision,” NAAJA said.
The court will return at a later date to determine remedies.
Naomi Neilson
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
