Auction house ordered to pay $1.38 million on a loosely worded bonus
Shane and Amanda Benson ran their own business buying, restoring and selling fine art, antiques, jewellery and luxury goods. In 2017 Lloyds Auctioneers recruited them to set up a Fine Arts and Luxury Goods division. Heads of agreement signed on 30 June 2017 gave each of them a salary of $100,000 and a bonus: Lloyds kept the first $200,000 of profit, and the bonus was 20% of profit after that.
They built and ran the division for six years. In early 2023 Lloyds raised their salaries to $150,000, then offered new contracts that left out the bonus scheme. The Bensons declined them, resigned in June 2023 and sued for the unpaid bonus.
Lloyds argued the bonus term was void for uncertainty, that 'profit' meant the profit of the whole company, and that the bonus had been abandoned by 2020. The court rejected all three. The agreement was 'inexpertly written' but had a commercial meaning: the profit of the division the Bensons ran. Lloyds called no witnesses from the business, and its accountant's figures showed the division losing millions, which made little sense for a company that kept it going and gave the couple pay rises. The court preferred the Bensons' forensic accountant and took the lower of his two estimates, $1,380,251.
Lloyds was also ordered to pay a $23,475 penalty for underpaying their annual leave when they left. It won one point on its cross-claim: without permission, Ms Benson had used a discount attached to a digital collectible she bought to cut her company's selling commission to 2.75%. That amount was left for the parties to work out.
A bonus promised in a short or informal document can still be enforced, even if it is loosely worded. An employer offering a new contract without the bonus does not, by itself, bring the old promise to an end.
Decided in August 2025. Before the trial, Lloyds was refused leave to appeal a ruling that kept the hearing dates ([2025] FCA 324). Interest and the amount of the cross-claim were left for the parties to agree.
A published decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, retold in plain English. Lawcaptain did not act in this case. Every outcome depends on its own facts. General information, not legal advice about your situation.
Talk to us.
Call 1300 967 552, or leave your details and we will call you.
Contract disputes
A hotel noise complaint, a 'sham' hearing and $1.44 millionHigh Court of Australia · 11 December 2024Read the case study
After 30 years at Telstra, sent home over a hearing testFederal Circuit and Family Court of Australia · 8 November 2024Read the case study
Truck sales manager gave notice and was told to drop leafletsFederal Circuit Court of Australia · 21 November 2018Read the case study