Gregory Robert Cave v Two Lands Services Pty Ltd and Another [2001] NSWIRComm 35

Gregory Robert Cave v Two Lands Services Pty Ltd and Another [2001] NSWIRComm 35

The application is dismissed because the contract was not unfair within the meaning of s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. Mr Cave willingly entered a commission-only arrangement with awareness of its risks and benefits; the employment was terminated by Mr Cave, not by the respondents. His conduct, including establishing competing business and breaching confidentiality, further militates against exercise of discretion in his favour. The evidence does not support variation or avoidance of the contract based on unfairness.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 March 2001
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'restraint of Trade' 'confidentiality' 'termination of Employment' 'breach of Contract' 'res Judicata']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'restraint of Trade' 'confidentiality' 'termination of Employment' 'breach of Contract' 'res Judicata']

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 ['Was the contract of employment unfair within section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996?' "Did the applicant's employment terminate by dismissal or resignation?" 'Did the restraint and confidentiality clauses operate unfairly?' 'Should the contract be varied to provide additional remuneration or benefits?']

Ratio Decidendi

The application is dismissed because the contract was not unfair within the meaning of s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. Mr Cave willingly entered a commission-only arrangement with awareness of its risks and benefits; the employment was terminated by Mr Cave, not by the respondents. His conduct, including establishing competing business and breaching confidentiality, further militates against exercise of discretion in his favour. The evidence does not support variation or avoidance of the contract based on unfairness.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['Application dismissed' 'Applicant to bear respondents’ costs, as agreed or assessed']