Pearson v Mynt Group Pty Ltd and ors [2008] NSWIRComm 126

Pearson v Mynt Group Pty Ltd and ors [2008] NSWIRComm 126

The applicant's contract of employment continued with Mynt Group Pty Ltd despite invoicing through Paul Pearson Holdings Pty Ltd, because he continued to work personally, full-time and exclusively for Mynt Group and there were no indicia of an independent contractor relationship. Mynt Group's conduct showed a belief that it could arbitrarily change the commission structure at will in circumstances where commission was a significant part of remuneration. That conduct rendered the contract unfair, and the real and effective cause of termination was Mynt Group's insistence on a different commission structure. The contract was therefore avoided from inception save for payments made under it,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2008
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
Contract found unfair and avoided from inception save for payments made pursuant to it; respondents jointly and severally liable for monetary compensation, interest and costs.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'commission Remuneration' 'termination of Employment' 'monetary Compensation' 'director Liability' 'mitigation' 'interest and Costs']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'commission Remuneration' 'termination of Employment' 'monetary Compensation' 'director Liability' 'mitigation' 'interest and Costs']

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 / Ex Parte Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's contract was with Mynt Group Pty Ltd personally or with Paul Pearson Holdings Pty Ltd as an independent contractor arrangement." "Whether the real and effective cause of termination was Mynt Group's insistence on a changed commission structure." "Whether Mynt Group's conduct in changing or seeking to change the commission basis of remuneration rendered the contract unfair for the purposes of s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996." 'What consequential monetary compensation, interest and costs should be ordered.' 'Whether the second and third respondents should be liable for monetary compensation in addition to Mynt Group Pty Ltd.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's contract of employment continued with Mynt Group Pty Ltd despite invoicing through Paul Pearson Holdings Pty Ltd, because he continued to work personally, full-time and exclusively for Mynt Group and there were no indicia of an independent contractor relationship. Mynt Group's conduct showed a belief that it could arbitrarily change the commission structure at will in circumstances where commission was a significant part of remuneration. That conduct rendered the contract unfair, and the real and effective cause of termination was Mynt Group's insistence on a different commission structure. The contract was therefore avoided from inception save for payments made under it,...

Court Disposition

Contract found unfair and avoided from inception save for payments made pursuant to it; respondents jointly and severally liable for monetary compensation, interest and costs.

Orders

  • ['The contract of employment is avoided from its inception save for payments made pursuant to it.' 'Each of the respondents, Mynt Group Pty Ltd, Glenn Davies and Steve Holland, is jointly and severally liable to pay the applicant monetary compensation in an amount to be determined consequent upon the filing of short...