Ian King v Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 310

Ian King v Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited & Anor [2006] NSWIRComm 310

The contract between Mr King and Regulatory Concepts was found unfair because Mr King, induced by Dr Dickenson and acting as an employee of Regulatory, performed significant work on the PharmaDirectory project without payment due to deferred payment arrangements that ultimately led to his exploitation when the venture failed. The contract permitted unconscionable avoidance of payment for work performed, entitling Mr King to remuneration at the agreed rate, unpaid superannuation, and interest.

Parties
Applicant: Ian King; First Respondent: Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited; Second Respondent: Helena Wanda Dickenson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part; contract varied; money orders and superannuation ordered; costs to applicant.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Employee/contractor Distinction, Unpaid Wages, Superannuation, Bargaining Inequality, Deferred Payment Arrangements
Industrial Law Employment Law Unfair Contracts Employee/contractor Distinction Unpaid Wages Superannuation Bargaining Inequality Deferred Payment Arrangements

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian King

Applicant

Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited

First Respondent

Helena Wanda Dickenson

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the contract between Mr King and Regulatory Concepts Pty Limited unfair under s.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996?
  2. 2 Was the PharmaDirectory project work performed by Mr King as an employee of Regulatory Concepts or as an investment on his own account?
  3. 3 Was the contract unfair due to Mr King's inferior bargaining position?

Ratio Decidendi

The contract between Mr King and Regulatory Concepts was found unfair because Mr King, induced by Dr Dickenson and acting as an employee of Regulatory, performed significant work on the PharmaDirectory project without payment due to deferred payment arrangements that ultimately led to his exploitation when the venture failed. The contract permitted unconscionable avoidance of payment for work performed, entitling Mr King to remuneration at the agreed rate, unpaid superannuation, and interest.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; contract varied; money orders and superannuation ordered; costs to applicant.

Orders

  • Variation of contract from 10 March 2003 to require Mr King be paid for PharmaDirectory project work at $45 per hour upon timesheet provision.
  • Respondents to pay Mr King a sum for unpaid Regulatory work, unpaid PharmaDirectory work, superannuation as claimed, plus interest at Supreme Court rates from date of contract termination to judgment.