Elizabeth Mimis-Weeks was employed by Seduce in June 2007 as its general manager where, as set out in an agreement between the two parties, she was entitled to eight weeks’ notice of termination. While the terms of the contract remained the same, a change in employment arrangements just a month later saw Mimis-Weeks’ render invoices to Seduce Group as a consultant. Her services were later terminated in May 2010.
In a case brought forward to the New South Wales Supreme Court recently, Seduce Group disputed a statutory demand from Mimis-Weeks which claimed she was still owed a total sum of $237,425.83. The demand indicated a lesser sum of $200,000 in total would be accepted in complete discharge of the claimed debt.
The amount claimed in the demand related to an agreement Mimis-Weeks alleged was reached with Seduce Group director Peter Li on May 2010, for the payment of 10 months’ pay ($227,057.89) in settlement of the moneys owing on the termination of her services. This included additional amounts referring to her work in the US market, which the group has been actively targeting since 2008.
Seduce Group denied there was a binding agreement reached on May 2010. In its argument against the statutory demand, the company did not deny liability for the original eight-week notice period agreed between the two parties but sought to offset additional costs. NSW Supreme Court Judge Julie Ward was satisfied there was a genuine dispute regarding a binding agreement in May 2010, but acknowledged an eight week termination payment had been agreed upon.
Judge Ward ordered the statutory demand be reduced to $41,471.76.
Seduce Group could not respond to questioning at the time of press.
Assia Benmedjdoub