Matthew Costin v Subway Development of NSW-ACT Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 196

Matthew Costin v Subway Development of NSW-ACT Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 196

The Court found the applicant was induced to enter the contract based on the representation that he would be provided with a fully maintained vehicle at the employer's expense over and above his salary. The employer's deduction of lease payments from the applicant’s salary while retaining ownership of the vehicle...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Matthew Costin; Respondent: Subway Development of NSW/ACT Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed in part; contract varied; orders to be made to repay deducted vehicle lease payments, pay superannuation shortfall, and insert allowance for travel/spread of hours.
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Employment Benefits, Superannuation, Overtime Payments, Remuneration Packages
Employment Law Industrial Law Unfair Contract Employment Benefits Superannuation Overtime Payments Remuneration Packages

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Matthew Costin

Applicant

Subway Development of NSW/ACT Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 (nsw) / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's employment contract was unfair due to the employer's deduction of lease payments for a company vehicle
  2. 2 Whether proper superannuation payments were made
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to payment for overtime hours worked

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the applicant was induced to enter the contract based on the representation that he would be provided with a fully maintained vehicle at the employer's expense over and above his salary. The employer's deduction of lease payments from the applicant’s salary while retaining ownership of the vehicle was unfair. The contract was varied to require the respondent to repay the deducted amounts, to pay an allowance for extensive travel and spread of hours, and to pay superannuation calculated on the total remuneration package. The evidence did not support the full extent of the applicant's overtime claim, but a travel/spread of hours allowance was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part; contract varied; orders to be made to repay deducted vehicle lease payments, pay superannuation shortfall, and insert allowance for travel/spread of hours.

Orders

  • Respondent to pay applicant $19,950 for lease payments deducted from remuneration for the motor vehicle.
  • Respondent to pay superannuation shortfall, calculated at nine per cent on the applicant’s total remuneration for the relevant periods.