Attard & Anor v Bridges Financial Services [2000] NSWIRComm 242

Attard & Anor v Bridges Financial Services [2000] NSWIRComm 242

The contract or arrangement between Avocari and Bridges, under which Mr Attard performed the work, was unfair because Bridges' peremptory termination denied the applicants a reasonable opportunity to sell the business or income stream they had developed and which Bridges recognised as saleable. Appropriate compensation was the assessed value of the lost business opportunity, plus compensation for the wiped computer programs and information, with interest and costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed in part; contract or arrangement found unfair and monetary orders made.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'financial Planning Services Industry' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination Without Notice' 'saleability of Business' 'business Valuation' 'money Order']
['industrial Relations' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'financial Planning Services Industry' 'employee or Independent Contractor' 'termination Without Notice' 'saleability of Business' 'business Valuation' 'money Order']

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

Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract or arrangement under which the applicants performed financial planning work was an unfair contract within the meaning of s105 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether the relationship should be treated as employment or as a principal and independent contractor relationship.' 'Whether deductions or changes relating to credit union commissions, secretarial costs, portfolio watch fees and other charges were unfair.' 'Whether Bridges denied the applicants a reasonable opportunity to sell a saleable business or income stream when it terminated the relationship without notice.' 'What value should be attributed to the business opportunity of which the applicants were deprived.' 'Whether the applicants should be compensated for computer programs and information wiped by the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

The contract or arrangement between Avocari and Bridges, under which Mr Attard performed the work, was unfair because Bridges' peremptory termination denied the applicants a reasonable opportunity to sell the business or income stream they had developed and which Bridges recognised as saleable. Appropriate compensation was the assessed value of the lost business opportunity, plus compensation for the wiped computer programs and information, with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; contract or arrangement found unfair and monetary orders made.

Orders

  • ['The contract or arrangement was varied as at the date of its termination to provide that upon its determination Bridges is liable to pay to the applicants the sum of $246,867 in respect of the value of the business.' 'Bridges was ordered to pay the applicants the sum of $255,867, plus interest from the date of...