- Concut had been employed by Worrell for 6 years with no written employment contract.
- It was always the understanding that severe misconduct could result in immediate termination.
- In 1986, they signed a document outlining some terms of employment, which said they could terminate with 3 months notice.
- Later, it was found that Concut had stolen from Worrell, and they terminated immediately. Concut sued, saying the new agreement had replaced the old agreement.
- Gleeson, Gaudron & Gummow JJ held that even though the new agreement was in force, the old agreement could “fill the gaps”.
- Therefore, there was an implied term that serious misconduct resulted in immediate termination.
- The new contract did not totally override the old contract.
Save this case