The former GM sued Wagga Wagga City Council for wrongful dismissal
In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of New South Wales upheld the dismissal of Wagga Wagga City Council (“the Council”) general manager Alan Eldridge. Eldridge, a “well-respected local businessman”, was appointed as general manager of the Council in April 2016 for a four-year term.
Prior to his appointment, Eldridge founded the Eldridge Group of Companies, which holds a “vast number of business interests” within the Wagga Wagga region. One company was owned by E Properties, the sole director of which was Eldridge’s son.
Although Eldridge’s four-year term as general manager was set to terminate in April 2020, in May 2017 (just over one year after his commencement), the Council summarily dismissed him based on a “serious and persistent” breach of his Standard Contract.
Eldridge subsequently sued the Council for wrongful dismissal, seeking compensation in excess of $1.1 million (representing the income he would have received during the remainder of his term).
The Council relied on several breaches of Eldridge’s Standard Contract, including his failure to lodge a Disclosure of Pecuniary Interest Return, his failure to disclose his external employment to the Council, and his hiring solicitors to draft a press release without the mayor’s authority.
Most significantly, the Council submitted that Eldridge failed to declare his son’s financial interest in the Council’s Inglewood Road Planning Proposal, but rather he expedited the proposal through Council. The Court agreed, finding that Eldridge had engaged in “brazen lies” by denying his knowledge of his son’s involvement and had “deliberately concealed it from the Council”.
“The lies were disgraceful and dishonest and represented a further breach of Mr Eldridge’s duties to the Council and those under his control,” President Bell commented.
“For a well-qualified, apparently vastly experienced businessman who purported to be across governance obligations, it is not possible to accept Mr Eldridge’s evidence that his failure ever to disclose his 100% ownership interest… was an oversight on his part,” President Bell stated.
The Court held that the Council was fully justified in summarily dismissing Eldridge and ordered that Eldridge pay the Council’s costs.
