Hartnett v Delta EMD Australia [2003] NSWSC 361

Hartnett v Delta EMD Australia [2003] NSWSC 361

Although the Magistrate erred by referring to material from Mr Scanlon's affidavit that had not been admitted into evidence, the error lacked significance because other evidence supported the finding that the bonus provisions had been varied. The finding on consideration was not shown to warrant disturbance because excluding exchange rate fluctuations from the bonus calculation could benefit either employer or employee. It was unnecessary to determine estoppel. The appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Local Court Decision Concerning Claim for Money Arising Out of a Contract of Employment / Supreme Court Appeal by Summons
Outcome
The Summons is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Legal Topics
['incentive Bonus' 'variation of Contract of Employment' 'consideration' 'estoppel' 'appeal From Local Court' 'use of Material Not Admitted Into Evidence']
['employment Law' 'contract Law' 'civil Procedure'] ['incentive Bonus' 'variation of Contract of Employment' 'consideration' 'estoppel' 'appeal From Local Court' 'use of Material Not Admitted Into Evidence']

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

Appeal From Local Court Decision Concerning Claim for Money Arising Out of a Contract of Employment / Supreme Court Appeal by Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Magistrate erred in finding that the defence of variation of the bonus provisions had been made out.' 'Whether the Magistrate erred in not finding a lack of consideration to support the alleged variation.' 'Whether the defence of estoppel had been made out.' "Whether the Magistrate's reference to material not admitted into evidence justified disturbing the decision."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Magistrate erred by referring to material from Mr Scanlon's affidavit that had not been admitted into evidence, the error lacked significance because other evidence supported the finding that the bonus provisions had been varied. The finding on consideration was not shown to warrant disturbance because excluding exchange rate fluctuations from the bonus calculation could benefit either employer or employee. It was unnecessary to determine estoppel. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

The Summons is dismissed. The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Orders

  • ['The Summons is dismissed.' 'The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the proceedings.']