Lee, Davinka v Targaze Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1250

Lee, Davinka v Targaze Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 1250

The Court found that a concluded compromise agreement was reached on 5 February 1997 under which the respondent was to pay $3,000 to the applicant, comprising $1,500 for legal costs and $1,500 for settlement of the matter, and was to employ the applicant on a casual basis at the Midland Brick factory. The respondent did not provide the agreed employment. On the evidence, the Court assessed the wage for the agreed position at about $475 for a 38-hour week, found loss for two days before the applicant commenced work in a delicatessen and continuing loss only until 4 March 1997 when an alternative position at close to equivalent pay was available, and awarded $650 for breach of the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Application for Remedy for Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment and Enforcement of Alleged Compromise Agreement / Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application to enforce the compromise agreement allowed; respondent ordered to pay agreed settlement sums, damages and interest.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'compromise Agreement' 'settlement Enforcement' 'damages' 'interest']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'compromise Agreement' 'settlement Enforcement' 'damages' 'interest']

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 for Remedy for Alleged Unlawful Termination of Employment and Enforcement of Alleged Compromise Agreement / Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether there was a concluded agreement as to terms of settlement between the applicant's solicitor and the respondent's representative." 'What the terms of the compromise agreement were.' 'Whether the respondent breached the compromise agreement by failing to provide the agreed employment.' 'What damages should be awarded for failure to provide the agreed employment, including the effect of mitigation and alternative employment.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that a concluded compromise agreement was reached on 5 February 1997 under which the respondent was to pay $3,000 to the applicant, comprising $1,500 for legal costs and $1,500 for settlement of the matter, and was to employ the applicant on a casual basis at the Midland Brick factory. The respondent did not provide the agreed employment. On the evidence, the Court assessed the wage for the agreed position at about $475 for a 38-hour week, found loss for two days before the applicant commenced work in a delicatessen and continuing loss only until 4 March 1997 when an alternative position at close to equivalent pay was available, and awarded $650 for breach of the...

Court Disposition

Application to enforce the compromise agreement allowed; respondent ordered to pay agreed settlement sums, damages and interest.

Orders

  • ['Targaze Pty Ltd pay to the applicant within 14 days $1,500.00, being an agreed amount to compromise application number WI 1411 of 1996 in this court.' "Targaze Pty Ltd pay to the applicant within 14 days $1,500.00, being an agreed contribution to the applicant's legal costs." 'Targaze Pty Ltd pay to the applicant...