Robert Edmond Coghill v TechniCall Australia Limited & Ors [2000] NSWIRComm 141

Robert Edmond Coghill v TechniCall Australia Limited & Ors [2000] NSWIRComm 141

The June 1997 employment contract was fair in its terms, but was unfairly performed when the applicant was dismissed without payment of salary and notice. However, the third and fourth respondents were not parties to that contract and did not have a sufficient connection with its formation, execution or termination to make it just to vary the contract or order payment against them under s106. The application against them was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 August 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair, Harsh and Unconscionable Employment Contract or Arrangement / Judgment After Hearing; Claims Against the First and Second Respondents Withdrawn by Leave, Application Proceeded Against the Third and Fourth Respondents
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'employment Contract and Collateral Arrangements' 'shareholder Connection With Employment Contract' 'compensation for Unfair Performance of Contract' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996' 'employment Contract and Collateral Arrangements' 'shareholder Connection With Employment Contract' 'compensation for Unfair Performance of Contract' '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 S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair, Harsh and Unconscionable Employment Contract or Arrangement / Judgment After Hearing; Claims Against the First and Second Respondents Withdrawn by Leave, Application Proceeded Against the Third and Fourth Respondents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's contract of employment or arrangement from June 1996 to 8 October 1997 was unfair, harsh or unconscionable under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996." 'Whether payments made to the applicant before June 1997 were unfair remuneration for work performed.' 'Whether the June 1997 compensation package was unfair in its terms or became unfair in its performance on termination.' 'Whether Nathan Spatt and Capital Credit Company Pty Limited had a sufficient connection with the making, execution or termination of the employment contract to justify orders for payment against them.' "Whether expenses claimed for the applicant's August/September 1997 overseas trip should be ordered."]

Ratio Decidendi

The June 1997 employment contract was fair in its terms, but was unfairly performed when the applicant was dismissed without payment of salary and notice. However, the third and fourth respondents were not parties to that contract and did not have a sufficient connection with its formation, execution or termination to make it just to vary the contract or order payment against them under s106. The application against them was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave granted for the applicant to withdraw the claim against TechniCall Australia Limited and Robert William Moore.' 'The application against Nathan Spatt and Capital Credit Company Pty Limited is dismissed.' 'No costs ordered in favour of Robert William Moore.' 'Costs submissions may be heard if no agreement can...