The former CEO of a Northern Territory spaceport company has been awarded a more than $2.3 million dismissal payout by the Federal Court. It found that her multi-million-dollar contract had been improperly denied following her dismissal. The court rejected the company’s counter-claim that she had engaged in fraud and deceptive conduct. It instead found her evidence “truthful” throughout over five years of legal proceedings. The court awarded the CEO a huge dismissal payout of over $2.3 million.
In this article, we look at the events of this Federal Court contract dispute: Scott v Equatorial Launch Australia Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2026]. Later, we’ll look at some of the other biggest workplace payouts of the past year, spanning workplace sexual harassment, adverse action, discrimination and unfair dismissal.
Case Summary: Scott v Equatorial Launch Australia Pty Ltd [2026]
Key employee argument: Her employer had failed to honour a $5 million contract that had been validly varied. She was entitled to payment following the end of her engagement.
Key employer argument: The CEO fabricated evidence of the contract’s variation and her entitlements had been replaced by a share option scheme. Her conduct during contract negotiations amounted to serious misconduct disentitling her to relief.
Court outcome: CEO awarded $2,367,430.25 under her varied commitment contract and a further $17,458.58 under her employment contract.
Ousted space company boss wins $2.3M after five-year legal fight
Carley Scott began working as CEO of Equatorial Launch Australia as a contractor in April 2018, reporting to the company’s founder. Equatorial Launch was working to establish Australia’s first commercial spaceport in East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory. In October 2019, Ms Scott and the founder entered into a commitment amount contract. This stipulated that she would be paid $5 million over five years.
The contract stated that if Ms Scott’s engagement ceased for any reason after 30 April 2021 and before 1 May 2023, the full commitment amount would be paid to her. This depended on whether certain funding hurdles were met and the payment did not place Equatorial Launch in a position of insolvency. In November 2019, Ms Scott and Equatorial Launch entered into a formal employment contract for her role as CEO. This stated that she would receive an annual salary of $250,000, to be deducted from the commitment contract amount.
Ms Scott told the Federal Court that during a video call with Mr Wallis in 2021, the commitment contract was varied in writing to remove the funding hurdles that had originally been included. She said that she did not agree to replace her entitlements under this varied contract with an employee share option plan.
‘Different approaches’ led to CEO’s dismissal prior to NASA launch
In August 2021, a new chairperson was appointed to Equatorial Launch’s board. The Federal Court found that Ms Scott and the chair “appeared to have had different approaches” for the company’s operations. These differences, along with other matters, led to Ms Scott’s dismissal in March 2022. This was just three months before NASA was due to launch commercial rockets from Equatorial Launch’s site.
The company later alleged that Ms Scott had engaged in serious misconduct by manipulating the terms of the commitment contract. She had also allegedly misrepresented the document she had amended in July 2021 as the agreed contract. In September 2022, Ms Scott requested to convert her entitlements into cash, which was denied. Then in December 2024, she requested to be paid her entitlements, to no avail.
Why did the CEO argue she was entitled to the dismissal payout?
In her Federal Court claim, Ms Scott made the following arguments:
The commitment contract was validly varied during the 2021 video call to remove the funding hurdles. That variation was supported by fresh consideration in the form of Ms Scott’s continued commitment to Equatorial Launch.
She never agreed to replace her entitlements with the employee share option plan.
Her decision to convert her entitlements to cash was valid. Any argument that it would have rendered Equatorial Launch insolvent should not defeat her claim.
Her later request for payment in December 2024 was a valid alternative avenue for recovering her entitlements.
She had not engaged in any serious misconduct that would disentitle her to payment.
Equatorial Launch argued that Ms Scott and the company had reached a “tacit agreement” that her entitlements would be replaced by 795,000 shares. In the alternative, Equatorial Launch argued Ms Scott was legally barred from denying this agreement. It further argued that her September 2022 decision to receive her entitlements in cash was invalid because it would have made the company insolvent. At this time, Equatorial Launch faced substantial claims and had no way of raising further capital. This included a $2.4 million dispute with Telstra. The company entered voluntary liquidation in February 2026.
Why did the court award the CEO more than $2.3 million?
In June 2026, the Federal Court of Australia delivered its ruling on Ms Scott’s claim for her dismissal payment. The court made the following findings:
Throughout the trial, Ms Scott was “careful and precise,” and “truthful.”
The commitment contract was validly varied to remove the funding hurdles. This was supported by fresh consideration in the form of the “practical benefit” Equatorial Launch received from Ms Scott’s continued commitment.
The claim that Ms Scott and the company had tacitly agreed to replace her entitlements with shares was rejected. This was because key documentation, including a new employment contract and share cancellation form, was never finalised.
The chairman’s evidence on this point was affected by his “determination and desire” to have Ms Scott forgo her entitlements. This resulted in an “overstatement” of any tacit agreement
Ms Scott’s September 2022 election to convert her entitlements to cash was found to be invalid. The court accepted evidence that doing so would have made Equatorial Launch insolvent.
Ms Scott’s later requirement for payment in December 2024 was valid. This was because the insolvency proviso in the contract only applied to elections made during the five-year commitment period.
The allegation of serious misconduct made against Ms Scott was rejected. The contract did not permit summary termination of entitlements on this basis.
Huge dismissal payout ordered
The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Ms Scott was entitled to the “retrospective” component of her commitment amount. This included the convertible notes that had accrued to her during her employment. However, the court found that she was not entitled to the “prospective” component that would have applied had she remained employed for the full five-year term. That separate amount was found to require shareholder approval under the Corporations Act 2001 that had never been obtained
Ultimately, the court found that Ms Scott was entitled to $2,367,430.25 under her varied commitment contract, after deducting salary payments already made to her. It further found that Equatorial Launch had breached her employment contract by failing to pay her a mobile phone allowance and failing to reimburse travel expenses. The court awarded her a further $2,742.97 and $14,715.62 respectively.
Ms Scott’s $2.3 million award stands as one of the largest single-employee court judgments in recent Australian workplace law. However, substantial payouts are becoming increasingly common across various jurisdictions. Over the past 12 months, Australian courts and tribunals have ordered significant financial remedies for sexual harassment, discrimination, unfair dismissal and adverse action. Let’s look at ten of the biggest.
Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Total payout: $670,000+.
Reason: Dismissed for making a complaint.
Background: An operations manager was unlawfully terminated after making internal complaints regarding workplace bullying. The court found HR had misled the organisation’s executive team to orchestrate the firing.
Total payout: $321,559.62 plus $60,000 in penalties.
Reason: Race discrimination.
Background: A nurse’s sacking was found to be substantially motivated by both her Chinese background and her workplace complaints. Clinical misconduct claims against her were shown to rest on “flimsy foundations.”
3. Record-breaking workplace sexual harassment payout
Background: A young migrant fast-food worker was subjected to intrusive sexual questioning, inappropriate videos and workplace victimisation. Her damages payout set a new record for compensation ordered in a workplace sexual harassment case.
Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Total payout: $203,256.
Reason: Sex discrimination.
Background: A consulate waitress was denied parental leave and flexible work, forced to express milk in a storeroom and ultimately made redundant. The Ministry didn’t contest the claim, leading to a default judgment across 13 separate contraventions.
5. Casino’s ‘tokenistic’ sexual harassment training
Background: A casino dealer was harassed and later assaulted by a repeat-offender manager. The casino was found vicariously liable for letting supervisors “skip through” watered-down online compliance training instead of proper face-to-face sessions.
Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Total payout: $125,238.
Reason: Workplace sexual harassment.
Background: A business owner sexually propositioned a trainee who had disclosed her anxiety and OCD on her first day. The court found he had deliberately exploited a stark power imbalance.
7. Contractor and customer liable for homophobic abuse
Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Total payout: $116,000.
Reason: Workplace sexual harassment.
Background: A site manager endured sustained homophobic and sexualised harassment from an independent contractor and a regular customer. Both were held personally liable under a recent law extending protection beyond direct employees.
8. Tax code on payslip exposes long-term sham contracting
Reason: Sham contracting and unpaid statutory leave entitlements.
Background: A worker treated as an independent contractor for over a decade was found by the court to have actually been a permanent employee. This was based partly on a termination payslip that used an employee-only tax code. He recovered years of unpaid leave and public holidays.
Jurisdiction: Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
Total payout: $90,000.
Reason: Workplace sexual harassment.
Background: A migrant waitress was physically cornered and kissed by her boss, who then pressured her to keep it secret. The boss had also underpaid her and provided her false pay records.
10. Disregard for procedural fairness nets maximum unfair dismissal payout
Background: Two co-founders of a meal-kit business were sacked on allegations the Commission found were unsupported and largely unreadable as evidence. One founder had recently undergone a liver transplant and been refused sick pay. The Commission found a “total disregard” for procedural fairness and ordered $84,000 to each man.
Have you experienced unfair treatment, harassment or a workplace dispute?
Standing up to an employer or navigating the Fair Work system can feel overwhelming. A Whole New Approach is Australia’s leading non-lawyer specialist firm, dedicated exclusively to representing employees for over 30 years. We’ve fought for the rights of over 16,000 workers before the Fair Work Commission, state tribunals and federal bodies across Australia.
Whether you are facing unfair dismissal, adverse action, sexual harassment or another rights violation, our team can help you get the justice and compensation you deserve. Call us seven days a week on 1800 333 666 for a free, confidential consultation.
We are expert Workplace Relations Specialists, not lawyers. Our role is to provide powerful advocacy and strategic guidance through the Fair Work system.
