Hill v Forteng Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 105

Hill v Forteng Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 105

The Full Court held that the contract variations reducing Hill’s remuneration were binding, supported by sufficient consideration through practical benefits; the variations were not void for uncertainty. Appeal on breach of contract dismissed. The costs orders at first instance were set aside in part, as indemnity costs after the Calderbank offer were not justified; an order for costs on a party and party basis was substituted for indemnity costs.

Parties
Appellant: Andrew Hill; First Respondent: Forteng Pty Ltd; Second Respondent: Shane Collinson as trustee for the Collinson Family Trust; Third Respondent: Brendan Gannon and Emily Gannon as trustees for the Gannon Family Trust; Fourth Respondent: Douglas John McKinnon as trustee for the McKinnon Family Trust
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Court Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court (hill V Forteng Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1501 and [2019] FCA 82)
Outcome
Appeal against the dismissal of breach of contract claim dismissed. Appeal against costs orders allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Consideration in Contract Variations, Contractual Uncertainty, Employment Contracts, Costs Orders, Calderbank Offers
Contracts Company Law Consideration in Contract Variations Contractual Uncertainty Employment Contracts Costs Orders Calderbank Offers

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 3 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Hill

Appellant

Forteng Pty Ltd

First Respondent

Shane Collinson as trustee for the Collinson Family Trust

Second Respondent

Brendan Gannon and Emily Gannon as trustees for the Gannon Family Trust

Third Respondent

Douglas John McKinnon as trustee for the McKinnon Family Trust

Fourth Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Full Court Judgment on Appeal From Federal Court (hill V Forteng Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1501 and [2019] FCA 82)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether agreements to vary remuneration were void for uncertainty
  2. 2 Whether there was valid consideration for the contract variations reducing remuneration
  3. 3 Whether costs orders and indemnity basis were properly made

Ratio Decidendi

The Full Court held that the contract variations reducing Hill’s remuneration were binding, supported by sufficient consideration through practical benefits; the variations were not void for uncertainty. Appeal on breach of contract dismissed. The costs orders at first instance were set aside in part, as indemnity costs after the Calderbank offer were not justified; an order for costs on a party and party basis was substituted for indemnity costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal against the dismissal of breach of contract claim dismissed. Appeal against costs orders allowed in part.

Orders

  • The appeal against the order dismissing the appellant's claim for damages for breach of his contract of employment is dismissed.
  • The appeal against the costs orders is upheld in part. The prior costs orders are set aside. The appellant is ordered to pay the respondents’ costs below on a party and party basis, to be taxed in default of agreement.