Commercial Computer Centre P/L v Chisholm [2001] NSWSC 349

Commercial Computer Centre P/L v Chisholm [2001] NSWSC 349

The Magistrate did not err in law in interpreting 'new business introduced' as including new work obtained by the plaintiff via tenders or quotations, even where the clients were existing. The words could not be limited to new clients as argued by the plaintiff, and the factual findings were not capable of disturbance on appeal as no error of law was established.

Parties
Plaintiff: Commercial Computer Centre Pty Limited; Defendant: William Kenneth Chisholm
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 May 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Local Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Employment Contracts, Meaning of 'new Business Introduced', Commission Entitlements, Appeal on Error of Law
Contract Law Employment Law Interpretation of Employment Contracts Meaning of 'new Business Introduced' Commission Entitlements Appeal on Error of Law

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Commercial Computer Centre Pty Limited

Plaintiff

William Kenneth Chisholm

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Local Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct interpretation of 'new business introduced' within the employment agreement?
  2. 2 Did the Magistrate err in law in interpreting the contract terms?
  3. 3 Was there an error of law in the application of facts to the contract terms?

Ratio Decidendi

The Magistrate did not err in law in interpreting 'new business introduced' as including new work obtained by the plaintiff via tenders or quotations, even where the clients were existing. The words could not be limited to new clients as argued by the plaintiff, and the factual findings were not capable of disturbance on appeal as no error of law was established.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The decision of Magistrate Barkell dated 2 November 2000 is affirmed.