{"id":1797,"date":"2026-05-27T06:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-05-26T20:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/dev.maguirelegal.com.au\/?p=1797"},"modified":"2026-05-27T10:02:59","modified_gmt":"2026-05-27T00:02:59","slug":"executive-terminations-toll-defeats-general-protections-claim-but-pays-for-inadequate-notice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/dev.maguirelegal.com.au\/blog\/2026\/05\/27\/executive-terminations-toll-defeats-general-protections-claim-but-pays-for-inadequate-notice\/","title":{"rendered":"Toll Defeats General Protections Claim but Pays for Inadequate Notice"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Employment<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

When employers move on an executive termination, the legal risk is not always where they expect it to be.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An employer may successfully defend a general protections claim and still face a significant damages award for breach of contract. In a recent Federal Circuit and Family Court decision, Lord v Toll Transport Pty Ltd<\/em> [2026] FedCFamC2G 348<\/a>, the Court dismissed the former executive\u2019s adverse action claims, but ordered Toll to pay $176,250 plus interest<\/strong> for failing to give Mr Lord what the Court found was 12 months\u2019 reasonable notice<\/strong> of termination.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The lesson of this decision for employers, business owners, decision-makers and senior executives, is even when the reason for termination of employment survives scrutiny under the Fair Work Act 2009<\/em> (Cth), employees may still seek redress for breach of the contract of employment.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Background<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The employee, Rodney Lord, had worked within the Toll Group for about 34 years and, at the time of termination, held the role of General Manager Queensland. His annual salary was about $235,000. On 9 March 2021, Toll terminated his employment and gave him 3 months\u2019 notice. He was also offered an ex-gratia payment of $58,750 on condition he signed a deed of release, which he declined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Lord alleged that Toll terminated his employment because he had made complaints about bullying by a former executive, and that this amounted to unlawful adverse action in breach of the general protection provisions of the Fair Work Act. Toll\u2019s defence was the business was heading in a new direction, needed new leadership, and was under serious financial pressure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the Court decided<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

1. Toll sucessfully defended the general protections claim<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The Court accepted the fact Lord had exercised a workplace right by making complaints about bullying. However, the mere fact of the complaint was not enough. The real issue was the reason the decision-maker terminated the employment. The Court found that the relevant decision-maker was Mr Rugendyke, Executive General Manager of Toll Palletised Express. The Court accepted his evidence that he terminated Lord\u2019s employment because the business needed a different leadership approach as part of a turnaround strategy, not because Lord had made complaints.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Court also found that Mr Beacham, Rugendyke\u2019s superior, had effectively given Rugendyke broad authority to make leadership decisions and had rubber-stamped the outcome, but that did not alter the result. The Court was satisfied the respondents had discharged the reverse onus under section 361 of the Fair Work Act. Lord\u2019s general protections claims were dismissed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Toll failed on notice<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

That was not the end of the case. Contract law provided an additional cause of action for Mr Lord<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The written employment contract\u2019s termination clause stated that either party could terminate employment by giving \u201cmonths\u2019 written notice\u201d, but the number of months had not been specified. The Court held Toll could not unilaterally treat the clause as permitting only 3 months\u2019 notice. Instead, it implied a term requiring reasonable notice<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the facts, the Court found 12 months\u2019 notice<\/strong> was reasonable. Important factors included:<\/p>\n\n\n\n