SP, page-118

You need to read my comment properly. In the judgment it was found that because Central did not terminate him on the grounds of the investigation they were unable to subsequently rely on it.

Even though:
"I find that Mr Heugh's conduct in retaining Introspec to investigate Mr Shortt at the expense of the company and not disclosing the investigation, and the reasons for it, to the board is capable of being a serious breach of the provisions of the contract. I find that Mr Heugh caused the investigation to be undertaken to obtain material to persuade the board that Mr Shortt should not be entrusted with responsibility for farmouts. It is apparent from Mr Heugh's email to Introspec on 17 February 2012 and a report forwarded by Introspec to Mr Heugh on 11 May 2012 that the investigation extended to any material that might discredit Mr Shortt. At the board meeting on 2 February Mr Heugh had argued that Mr Shortt was not well qualified to conduct the farmout process. The board resolved to assign responsibility for farmout dealings to Mr Shortt. Mr Heugh stated that despite his opposition he agreed to cooperate with these new arrangements. As a director of the company Mr Heugh was entitled to maintain and express his opinion that Mr Shortt was not well qualified to assume responsibility for the farmout dealings. However, as the company's chief executive officer he was not entitled, without notice to the board, to cause an investigation into Mr Shortt with a view to showing that he was not qualified to assume the responsibility which the board had determined he should"