Patrick John Bredel v Moore Business Systems Australia Ltd [2002] NSWSC 185

Patrick John Bredel v Moore Business Systems Australia Ltd [2002] NSWSC 185

The plaintiff's entitlement to 4% commission was limited to 1998, as expressly stated in the 25 March 1998 remuneration memo and confirmed by oral evidence. There was no evidence supporting entitlement to such commission for the life of the relevant contracts. The defendant's remuneration plans were subject to annual review. Any alleged assurance was too vague to form a binding contractual term. Estoppel claim failed as the evidence did not support detrimental reliance sufficient to bind the defendant to pay 4% commission for the life of the contracts.

Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick John Bredel; Defendant: Moore Business Systems Australia Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
Contractual Terms, Remuneration, Estoppel, Employment Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick John Bredel

Plaintiff

Moore Business Systems Australia Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to 4% commission on incremental sales 'for the life' of certain contracts with the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was estopped from denying the plaintiff's entitlement to commission

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's entitlement to 4% commission was limited to 1998, as expressly stated in the 25 March 1998 remuneration memo and confirmed by oral evidence. There was no evidence supporting entitlement to such commission for the life of the relevant contracts. The defendant's remuneration plans were subject to annual review. Any alleged assurance was too vague to form a binding contractual term. Estoppel claim failed as the evidence did not support detrimental reliance sufficient to bind the defendant to pay 4% commission for the life of the contracts.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • Summons dismissed
  • Court will hear argument on costs if parties cannot agree