Royal Guardian Mortgage Management Pty Limited v Nguyen [2014] NSWSC 665
RGMM failed to establish that the Dibelle commissions were paid under mistake or in breach of the defendants' employment obligations because the Court accepted the defendants' evidence that RGMM, through Mr Tomazin, knew of and agreed to the Dibelle arrangements and accreditation, and that the defendants were not employed to perform the work of brokers for direct borrowers. The Court also accepted that the payments to Bethian were made under a separate management agreement and were not payment of contractual bonuses. Subject to the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), RGMM breached the employment arrangements by failing to pay the defendants' bonus entitlements and by failing to pay Ms Nguyen her...
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 May 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Common Law Contract and Employment Proceedings With Amended Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
- Outcome
- In respect of the action by RGMM against the defendants, judgment for the defendants. In respect of the amended cross-claim, judgment for the cross-claimants.
- Legal Topics
- ['payments Allegedly Made Under Mistake' 'breach of Employment Contract' 'bonuses' 'profit Share' 'collateral Management Fee Agreement' 'construction and Variation of Contract' 'jones V Dunkel Inference' 'limitation Act Defence']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Common Law Contract and Employment Proceedings With Amended Cross Claim / Principal Judgment After Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 ["Whether payments made by RGMM to Dibelle were recoverable because loan applications referred by Dibelle should have come directly to RGMM as part of the defendants' employment obligations." "Whether RGMM knew of and agreed to the defendants' connection with Dibelle and the accreditation arrangements for Dibelle." "Whether payments made to Bethian were payments of bonuses owed under the defendants' employment contracts or payments under a separate management agreement." 'Whether the defendants were entitled to unpaid bonuses and Ms Nguyen was entitled to profit share under the employment arrangements.' 'Whether claims for earlier bonuses and profit share were barred by the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW).']
Ratio Decidendi
RGMM failed to establish that the Dibelle commissions were paid under mistake or in breach of the defendants' employment obligations because the Court accepted the defendants' evidence that RGMM, through Mr Tomazin, knew of and agreed to the Dibelle arrangements and accreditation, and that the defendants were not employed to perform the work of brokers for direct borrowers. The Court also accepted that the payments to Bethian were made under a separate management agreement and were not payment of contractual bonuses. Subject to the Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), RGMM breached the employment arrangements by failing to pay the defendants' bonus entitlements and by failing to pay Ms Nguyen her...
Court Disposition
In respect of the action by RGMM against the defendants, judgment for the defendants. In respect of the amended cross-claim, judgment for the cross-claimants.
Orders
- ["Judgment for the defendants in RGMM's action against them." 'Judgment for Ms Nguyen on the amended cross-claim in the sum of $1,092,947 plus interest.' 'Judgment for Mr Stolyar on the amended cross-claim in the sum of $545,767 plus interest.' 'The parties are to calculate interest.' 'Leave to approach on three...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment