Gerard Landman and Michael Clapham v Grange Securities Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 253

Gerard Landman and Michael Clapham v Grange Securities Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 253

At this threshold stage, it cannot be conclusively determined that no order could be made within jurisdiction for either Sydney Water or tortious conduct points; the bonus payments were discretionary and not payable or receivable at time of termination as defined in s 108A, so remuneration cap provisions were not offended; applications for relief do not offend s 108A as presently pleaded. Accordingly, motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion in Application Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Threshold Jurisdictional Determination
Outcome
Motions to dismiss applications for relief refused; costs awarded to applicants.
Legal Topics
['jurisdiction' 'unfair Contracts' 'remuneration Cap' 'bonus Scheme' 'contractual Variation' 'tortious Conduct']
['employment Law' 'industrial Relations'] ['jurisdiction' 'unfair Contracts' 'remuneration Cap' 'bonus Scheme' 'contractual Variation' 'tortious Conduct']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion in Application Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Threshold Jurisdictional Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applications exceed the remuneration cap under s 108A Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'Whether the claims are outside jurisdiction being breach of contract per Sydney Water' "Whether claims for tortious conduct are outside court's jurisdiction"]

Ratio Decidendi

At this threshold stage, it cannot be conclusively determined that no order could be made within jurisdiction for either Sydney Water or tortious conduct points; the bonus payments were discretionary and not payable or receivable at time of termination as defined in s 108A, so remuneration cap provisions were not offended; applications for relief do not offend s 108A as presently pleaded. Accordingly, motions to dismiss for want of jurisdiction refused.

Court Disposition

Motions to dismiss applications for relief refused; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • ['Notices of motion to dismiss applications for relief refused' "Respondent to pay applicants' costs of proceedings"]