Irving v Jones Lang LaSalle Australia Limited and another (No. 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 87

Irving v Jones Lang LaSalle Australia Limited and another (No. 2) [2007] NSWIRComm 87

The applicant's likely bonus was to be quantified at $45,487.50 because the contemporaneous memorandum dated 12 April 2001 set the target bonus and calculated actual bonus by reference to the applicant's target bonus, individual performance rating and Australasian performance rating. The superannuation issue was resolved in the applicant's favour because the documentation was uncertain and the respondents had not previously relied on an argument that the entitlement had already been paid. The share value under Order 4(iv) was to be assessed as at termination on 16 October 2001 because Order 3 referred to payment on termination, and Order 4 was not a final perfected order because Order 7...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Unfair Contract / Determination of Issues of Quantification of Amounts Ordered to Be Paid After Judgment Delivered on 21 September 2006
Outcome
The Court quantified the bonus and superannuation amounts, amended Order 4 of the Judgment Orders, directed the filing of short minutes and directed evidence and submissions on costs, while making no order about the alleged overpayment.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'quantification of Compensation' 'bonus Payments' 'superannuation Contributions' 'share Entitlements' 'interest and Costs' 'finality of Orders']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'quantification of Compensation' 'bonus Payments' 'superannuation Contributions' 'share Entitlements' 'interest and Costs' 'finality of Orders']

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 S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Concerning an Unfair Contract / Determination of Issues of Quantification of Amounts Ordered to Be Paid After Judgment Delivered on 21 September 2006

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["What amount should be paid for the applicant's likely bonus for the period from 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001." 'Whether the six months payment in lieu of notice should include employer superannuation contributions.' 'Whether the current market value of 2,622 shares should be assessed as at the date of judgment or the date of termination.' 'Whether Order 4 of the Judgment Orders had been finally entered and perfected.' 'How interest and costs should proceed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's likely bonus was to be quantified at $45,487.50 because the contemporaneous memorandum dated 12 April 2001 set the target bonus and calculated actual bonus by reference to the applicant's target bonus, individual performance rating and Australasian performance rating. The superannuation issue was resolved in the applicant's favour because the documentation was uncertain and the respondents had not previously relied on an argument that the entitlement had already been paid. The share value under Order 4(iv) was to be assessed as at termination on 16 October 2001 because Order 3 referred to payment on termination, and Order 4 was not a final perfected order because Order 7...

Court Disposition

The Court quantified the bonus and superannuation amounts, amended Order 4 of the Judgment Orders, directed the filing of short minutes and directed evidence and submissions on costs, while making no order about the alleged overpayment.

Orders

  • ['The parties are directed to file short minutes of order reflecting the quantification of the amounts payable in accordance with Orders 4 and 5 of the Judgment Orders within 7 days.' 'The parties are directed to file and serve any evidence and submissions on the issue of costs within 14 days, after which the...