Employers beware: workplace policies may lead to breach of contract

Current site :    AU   |   EN
China Hong Kong SAR
United Kingdom
United States

This article was written by Shekira Cardona, Roohi Gill and Charlotte Fenton.

Workplace policies may not simply be aspirational for an organisation, but may form part of a binding employment contract.

Implications for employers

As always, employers must ensure policies and procedures are not incorporated into employee's contracts. However, this case also serves as a reminder that not all claimants will be awarded significant sums for breaches of contract.


While Ms Romero was employed as an officer by Farstad, she made a bullying complaint against a ship captain. At the same time, the captain raised concerns about Ms Romero's competence.

Farstad treated the complaint as one made under its own workplace harassment and discrimination policy (Policy). Farstad investigated the complaint accordingly.

Ms Romero alleged Farstad had breached her employment contract as:

  • the Policy had been incorporated into the contract; and
  • Farstad had not complied with the Policy.

In separate proceedings, a Full Court of the Federal Court found Farstad had breached Ms Romero's employment contract as:

  • the Policy formed part of the employment contract; and
  • Farstad had not complied with the Policy.

The Full Court remitted matters regarding repudiation of contract and costs to the Federal Court.

In the background and due to Farstad's conduct, Ms Romero had determined she could no longer work in the maritime industry and set about a career change.


This decision concerns the issues of repudiation and damages. The Court found that, despite the breach of contract, the breaches were not of sufficient severity to repudiate the contract. That is, Farstad's conduct did not prevent Ms Romero from continuing employment with the company.

Despite this, Ms Romero was still entitled to damages for the breach of contract. Although Ms Romero claimed $115,759.71 in losses (including costs of studying to facilitate her career change), this amount was rejected. Ms Romero was awarded only $100 in nominal damages. In particular, the Court stated that Ms Romero ceasing her employment in the maritime industry, and taking a new career path, was not a probable consequence of Farstad's breach.

Romero v Farstad Shipping (Indian Pacific) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2016] FCA 1453

The Federal Court has refused an application to stay proceedings to quantify compensation for patent infringement (quantum proceedings) pending the outcome of separate parallel proceedings challenging the validity of the infringed patent on new grounds. The case is significant as intellectual property cases are regularly bifurcated with liability determined separately damages or an account of profits. A patentee may also bring consecutive infringement cases and therefore have two separate cases considering invalidity issues for the same patent running in parallel.

03 August 2022

Since the introduction of a nationwide Marketing Authorization Holder (MAH) system in 2019, licenses have linked directly to therapeutic products rather than manufacturers.

03 August 2022

The Bill is one of the first items of legislative change introduced by the Government in the industrial relations sphere, reflecting one of several election promises made under the “Secure Australian Jobs Plan”.

03 August 2022