Angus Aitken comments ‘the last straw’ for Colin Bell, court told

Colin Bell had said Angus Aitken’s assessment of ANZ CFO Michelle Jablko was “the last straw”, a court heard.

Bell Potter’s former head of institutional sales, Angus Aitken, is suing ANZ.

ANZ chief executive Shayne ­Elliott was told by Bell Potter boss Colin Bell that Angus Aitken’s frank assessment of the bank’s incoming chief financial officer was “the last straw” for the star broker, according to court documents.

Bell Potter’s former head of institutional sales, Angus Aitken, is suing ANZ, its chief executive Mr Elliott and its communications boss Paul Edwards for defamation, intimidation and misleading and deceptive conduct.

The move follows Mr Aitken’s departure from Bell Potter in late May after a controversial note sent to 70 clients where he described incoming ANZ chief ­financial officer Michelle Jablko as one “of the dumber appointments I have seen”, saying this was another reason “not to own this stock — Sell ANZ”.

Mr Aitken left Bell Potter after a tweet by Mr Edwards responded to Mr Aitken’s note by saying: “sexism alive + well in stock­broking?”

In its defence filed in the NSW Supreme Court, ANZ alleged it was Mr Bell who volunteered the comment about Mr Aitken’s behaviour and told Mr Elliot it was “the last straw” and he “would deal with this”.

“Upon answering the call, Mr Bell said he knew what Elliott was calling about; that he could not ­believe it had happened; that it was the last straw; and that he would deal with it,” the defence filed in the NSW Supreme Court alleges.

It December last year Mr Aitken was issued with an enforceable undertaking by ASIC after the misuse of confidential client information, which allowed millions of Ten Network shares to be traded in a short-selling operation.

ANZ admitted Mr Elliott rang Mr Bell but denied he demanded Mr Aitken be sacked. Rather ANZ claimed the bank chief executive had rung Mr Bell to say he was planning to attend a Bell Potter breakfast briefing the following day to brief investors.

“Elliott said that he respected the plaintiff’s (Mr Aitken’s) right to comment and the plaintiff is ­entitled to say what he liked; that he may not like how he said it but that was not the reason for his call; and that the reason for his call was that he was scheduled to present at a breakfast briefing at Bell Potter that Friday and had decided that he would attend,” the ANZ filing said.

“Mr Bell thanked Elliott and said that he was going to speak to Bell Potter’s managing director, Alistair Provan, and “deal with this”; and Elliott said that it was a matter for Mr Bell, and that he was simply ringing to reassure Mr Bell that he would be there on Friday,” the statement claims.

Emails filed with Mr Aitken’s claim show that Mr Bell chastised Mr Aitken that evening for sending the note.

“Jesus Gus. I love your radical honesty but you put me to the test today; your ANZ comment was like you teed up my nuts and had a full swing with your driver,” Mr Bell wrote at 9.13pm on May 24.

In his statement of claim, Mr Aitken alleged Bell had no choice but to “bow to pressure” being applied by ANZ because of charges the bank held over Bell Potter assets “and two major transactions between Bell Potter and ANZ then in progress”.

But, crucially, ANZ claim the May 24 phone call between Bell and Elliot took place at 10.25pm — not “prior to 7:37pm” as Mr Aitken claimed — meaning it was after Bell had sent the email to Aitken.

ANZ will argue this means Bell was acting under his own volition in disciplining Aitken, not as a result of talking to Elliot.

Aitken also claimed the tweet and phone call amounted to a “campaign” to have him sacked.

ANZ has also denied that Mr Elliot directed Mr Edwards to send the tweet and that “Elliot had no prior knowledge of Edwards’ intention to send the first tweet”.

The tweet was later deleted by Edwards, along with several follow-up tweets, with ANZ denying Mr Elliot instructed the tweets be removed.

In their defence ANZ say they were only made aware that Mr Aitken was “aggrieved” by the publication of Mr Edwards’ tweet “upon receipt of a letter from the plaintiff’s solicitor” on May 26.

ANZ claim that on June 24 they attempted to “make amends in respect of the first further tweets and the second further tweets”, with Mr Aitken rejecting the settlement offer made by the bank.

As of yesterday, ANZ said the offer of retraction, apology and an agreed arbitrator was still on the table.