Bekir Durunesil & anor v Ravbun Oncu & ors [2005] NSWIRComm 22

Bekir Durunesil & anor v Ravbun Oncu & ors [2005] NSWIRComm 22

The contract between the first applicant and the first respondent was within the unfair contracts jurisdiction because it was the clear intention of both parties that the applicants work in the businesses. The contract was unfair because the first respondent made false representations about the takings, required cash payments without receipts, failed to transfer the businesses, kept a commission for a loan that was never obtained, and orchestrated the applicants' removal after payments stopped. The evidence did not justify orders against the second respondent, but the third and fourth respondents had a sufficient connection and directly benefited from mortgage payments made by the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2005
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Parte Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
The contract was declared void ab initio, monetary orders and interest were made against the first respondent and the third and fourth respondents, and costs were awarded to the first applicant.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'oral Contract' 'contracts Whereby Work Is Performed in an Industry' 'misrepresentation' 'relief Against Non Parties to Impugned Arrangement']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'oral Contract' 'contracts Whereby Work Is Performed in an Industry' 'misrepresentation' 'relief Against Non Parties to Impugned Arrangement']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Parte Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the oral contract or arrangement was a contract whereby work is performed in any industry for the purposes of the unfair contracts jurisdiction under the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' "Whether the contract was unfair because of representations made by the first respondent about the businesses' takings and the surrounding conduct." 'Whether monetary orders should be made against the first, second, third and fourth respondents.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between the first applicant and the first respondent was within the unfair contracts jurisdiction because it was the clear intention of both parties that the applicants work in the businesses. The contract was unfair because the first respondent made false representations about the takings, required cash payments without receipts, failed to transfer the businesses, kept a commission for a loan that was never obtained, and orchestrated the applicants' removal after payments stopped. The evidence did not justify orders against the second respondent, but the third and fourth respondents had a sufficient connection and directly benefited from mortgage payments made by the...

Court Disposition

The contract was declared void ab initio, monetary orders and interest were made against the first respondent and the third and fourth respondents, and costs were awarded to the first applicant.

Orders

  • ['The contract entered into sometime in April 2001 between the first applicant and the first respondent be declared void ab initio.' 'The first respondent pay to the first applicant the sum of $161,000.00.' 'The third and fourth respondents, jointly or severally, pay to the first applicant the sum of $14,879.00.'...