Toll ordered to pay $176,250 over notice clause typo in manager’s contract
A single typo in an employment contract has cost Australian transport giant Toll $176,250 after a court ruled that long-serving manager Rodney Lord should have received 12 months' notice rather than three when he was dismissed in 2021. The unusual case highlights how drafting errors in contracts can result in significant financial penalties, particularly when dealing with senior, loyal employees with extensive service records.
Mr Lord had spent 34 years at Toll, working his way up from supervisor in Toowoomba to Queensland general manager in 2018, overseeing the company's largest state operation whilst earning $235,000 annually. His employment contract contained a critical drafting error, stating that either party could end employment by giving "months' written notice" without specifying the number; Toll gave him three months' notice, but Federal Circuit and Family Court Judge Gregory Egan found that Lord's lengthy service, clean disciplinary record and limited employment prospects at his age justified a 12-month notice period. Lord had rejected Toll's initial offer of $58,750 if he signed a deed releasing them from future claims, and subsequently secured alternative employment at a lesser position paying around $140,000 annually.
- Typo cost Toll $176,250 in compensation to sacked manager
- Manager entitled to 12 months' notice, not three
- 34-year loyal employee had clean disciplinary record
New here? Start with this
An employment contract containing a typo has led to a legal dispute between Australian transport company Toll and a long-serving manager. The contract for Rodney Lord stated that either party could end employment by giving "months' written notice" without specifying how many months.
Toll is a major Australian transport company, and Mr Lord was its Queensland general manager from 2018. He had worked there for 34 years, starting as a supervisor and progressing through the ranks.
When Toll gave him three months' notice in 2021, Mr Lord disputed whether this was sufficient. A Federal Circuit and Family Court judge, noting his 34 years of service, clean disciplinary record and limited job prospects at his age, ruled that he should have received 12 months' notice instead, ordering Toll to pay him $176,250.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Long-serving employees deserve substantial protection when facing dismissal, and contract ambiguity should not disadvantage the party without drafting power. Lord's 34 years of loyal service, spotless record, and difficult reemployment prospects at his age made a minimal notice period profoundly unfair. Courts have traditionally used equity to interpret unclear contract language fairly, and the judge's reasoning appropriately recognised that a mere drafting oversight should not strip a senior executive of basic protections earned through decades of dedication.
The case against
Contracts must provide certainty, and courts cannot simply impose terms based on post-hoc judgments about fairness when the wording is ambiguous. Toll acted in good faith by giving three months' notice—the missing number was a mutual drafting error, not intentional overreach. Setting a precedent where courts dramatically alter dismissal terms based on equity concerns encourages future litigation and undermines the principle that parties must draft carefully; Toll's settlement offer of $58,750 was reasonable compensation for genuine contractual ambiguity.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “How a typo in an employment contract cost Aussie transport giant Toll $176,250 after sacking long-time manager”.