Sheldrick, Graheme v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1794

Sheldrick, Graheme v WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd & Ors [1998] FCA 1794

The applicant was employed by WTP (Hong Kong) Ltd under a contract terminable by three months' notice, with no term requiring a four year minimum period or long term commitment beyond this. The summary dismissal due to the office break-in and alleged unprofessional behaviour was not justified as it did not amount to wilful misconduct or repudiation of contract, and motives were not malfeasant. There was no misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act as there were reasonable grounds for future representations made at the time, but there was a breach of contract concerning the failure to arrange proper work permits. Damages were awarded in lieu of notice and additional...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 September 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment at First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for applicant in part; claims against first respondent dismissed; damages and costs awarded against second and third respondents.
Legal Topics
['employment Contract' 'summary Dismissal' 'relocation of Employee' 'misconduct' 'notice of Termination' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'damages Calculation' 'breach of Contract' 'trade Practices Act']
['employment Law' 'contract Law' 'trade Practices' 'damages'] ['employment Contract' 'summary Dismissal' 'relocation of Employee' 'misconduct' 'notice of Termination' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'representations as to Future Matters' 'damages Calculation' 'breach of Contract' 'trade Practices Act']

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

Civil / Judgment at First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicant was summarily dismissed in breach of contract' 'Whether there was a term for a four year minimum employment or long term commitment' 'Whether the summary dismissal was justified based on misconduct or unprofessional behaviour' 'Whether representations made were misleading or deceptive under the Trade Practices Act' 'Entitlement to damages in lieu of notice and for breach of visa/permit obligations']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was employed by WTP (Hong Kong) Ltd under a contract terminable by three months' notice, with no term requiring a four year minimum period or long term commitment beyond this. The summary dismissal due to the office break-in and alleged unprofessional behaviour was not justified as it did not amount to wilful misconduct or repudiation of contract, and motives were not malfeasant. There was no misleading or deceptive conduct under the Trade Practices Act as there were reasonable grounds for future representations made at the time, but there was a breach of contract concerning the failure to arrange proper work permits. Damages were awarded in lieu of notice and additional...

Court Disposition

Judgment for applicant in part; claims against first respondent dismissed; damages and costs awarded against second and third respondents.

Orders

  • ['Judgment entered in favour of the applicant against the second and third respondents for $253,000 (damages of $181,000 plus interest of $72,000)' 'Second and third respondents to pay applicant’s costs on a party/party basis' 'The claim against the first respondent is dismissed with no order as to costs']