In the original claim, the respondent, who was employed as the Advertising Manager for the appellant, filed a claim for denied contractual benefits, alleging the appellant failed to pay additional payments of $10,000 per quarter for taking on increased responsibilities due to a promotion.  The respondent sought a declaration that he had been wrongfully denied these contractual benefits over a period of two quarters, and requested payment of the full amount, totally nearly $18,000.
The appellant argued that the additional payments were contingent upon the respondent meeting Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), which he allegedly failed to do.  However, the Commissioner determined that the agreement for additional quarterly payments was not contingent upon meeting KPIs, and therefore the appellant’s failure to pay for the completed quarter was a breach of contract.  The Commissioner ordered the appellant pay the respondent the sum of $10,000, and dismissed the remainder of the claim, as the respondent did not complete the entire quarter.
The appellant's appeal challenged various aspects of the Commissioner's original decision, alleging bias and procedural unfairness. The appeal notice contained several points, including the Commissioner's failure to acknowledge valid reasons for non-compliance with programming orders, the alleged bias in the Commissioner's decision, and the failure to admit certain evidence.
The Full Bench considered these matters and emphasised the need for a party to be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case and respond to issues adverse to them.  The Full Bench found that the appellant's case lacked evidence to establish that the respondent's quarterly payments were conditional upon achieving KPIs; subsequently the appellant conceded that no document existed to support this claim. The Full Bench found that the additional payments were intended as remuneration for the increased responsibilities of the new position and concluded that the Commissioner’s decision was consistent with the evidence.  The claims of bias and procedural fairness were unsubstantiated.  Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

The decision can be read here.