Background
Dr Benjamen Franklen Gussen, formerly a senior lecturer in law at Swinburne University of Technology, faced a disciplinary process concerning alleged serious misconduct. With assistance from the National Tertiary Education Union, and after obtaining legal and accounting advice, he negotiated a separation from the university. On 18 September 2024, the parties executed a deed under which Dr Gussen resigned, received a payment equivalent to 26 weeks’ salary and other entitlements, and gave Swinburne broad releases.
Dr Gussen later commenced or pursued several proceedings involving Swinburne and contended that the deed was invalid or vitiated. His arguments included alleged representations about the financial and tax consequences of the settlement, unilateral mistake, and allegations that the deed formed part of adverse action or victimisation. Because the deed’s validity arose across proceedings assigned to different judges, the Court determined that issue as a separate question.
The Court’s Holding
Justice Bennett held that the deed was valid and enforceable against Dr Gussen in accordance with its terms in proceedings VID 250/2025, VID 1296/2025 and VID 1509/2025. The Court found no misrepresentation or other vitiating factor. Swinburne had expressly rejected proposed wording characterising the settlement as a voluntary early-retirement-scheme payment, and the deed instead specified the payment amount and stated that it would be taxed according to law.
The Court also rejected unilateral mistake, duress and the contention that the deed itself constituted adverse action. Dr Gussen had voluntarily executed clear and unambiguous terms after receiving assistance and advice, in return for substantial consideration. The Court left it to the judges managing the individual proceedings to determine precisely how the deed applies to their particular pleadings and claims; costs of the separate-question hearing were likewise reserved for the original docket judge.
Key Takeaways
- A broadly drafted employment-release deed may be enforced where it was voluntarily signed for substantial consideration after the employee had access to legal, union and financial advice.
- A party cannot establish misrepresentation or unilateral mistake merely from an expected tax outcome when the counterparty expressly rejected the requested tax characterisation and promised only taxation according to law.
- Allegations of adverse action preceding a settlement do not, without an established vitiating factor, invalidate a later deed releasing claims arising from the employment relationship.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces the finality ordinarily afforded to negotiated employment settlements. Courts will assess the deed’s text and the parties’ communications objectively, particularly where a proposed term was expressly rejected before execution.
The ruling was confined to the deed’s validity and enforceability. Whether its releases bar particular causes of action or forms of relief remains for determination in the individual proceedings.