Kerney v Mead & Anor [2011] NSWSC 692
Because the earlier reasons intended the annual percentage increase to be calculated from Mr Wellington's base earnings without overtime, Mr Ivey's calculations were accepted and the Furzer Crestani Services calculations, which included overtime, were rejected; judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the calculated sum.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 05 July 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Common Law Damages Proceeding / Ex Tempore Judgment on Calculation of Damages After Earlier Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,756,219; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['calculation of Annual Increase in Wages' 'comparable Employee Earnings' 'overtime Earnings']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Common Law Damages Proceeding / Ex Tempore Judgment on Calculation of Damages After Earlier Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether the annual percentage increase in the plaintiff's likely Telstra earnings should be calculated by reference to the comparable employee's base earnings without overtime or by including overtime."]
Ratio Decidendi
Because the earlier reasons intended the annual percentage increase to be calculated from Mr Wellington's base earnings without overtime, Mr Ivey's calculations were accepted and the Furzer Crestani Services calculations, which included overtime, were rejected; judgment was entered for the plaintiff in the calculated sum.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,756,219; defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Orders
- ['Judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $1,756,219.' "Defendants to pay the plaintiff's costs."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment