BRAITLING V. BOWES 17/1954

BRAITLING V. BOWES 17/1954

On the totality of the evidence, there was no relationship of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff was not entitled to wages; the arrangement was a private undertaking incidental to a joint mining enterprise, and the implication of a contract for wages could not be sustained.

Parties
Appellant: Braitling; Respondent: Bowes
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 1955
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Implied Contracts, Employment Relationship, Wages for Services
Contract Law Employment Law Implied Contracts Employment Relationship Wages for Services

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Braitling

Appellant

Bowes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was employed by the defendant under a contract of employment for wages as cook
  2. 2 Whether the arrangement amounted to an employment relationship or a private arrangement with no liability for wages

Ratio Decidendi

On the totality of the evidence, there was no relationship of employment between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff was not entitled to wages; the arrangement was a private undertaking incidental to a joint mining enterprise, and the implication of a contract for wages could not be sustained.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment of Local Court set aside
  • Judgment entered for the defendant