Health Services Union NSW v Mylan; Mylan v Health Services Union NSW [2015] NSWSC 872

Health Services Union NSW v Mylan; Mylan v Health Services Union NSW [2015] NSWSC 872

The proposed implied term did not satisfy the requirements for implication because it was too uncertain to provide business efficacy and raised unresolved questions about what cooperation required, when it was required, how the HSU would assess the genuineness of Mr Mylan's taxable-component assessment, how that assessment would be reconciled with the HSU's own tax obligations, and how loss would be assessed. In any event, the Court would decline discretionary relief under s 73 because Mr Mylan had not taken up the HSU's invitation to nominate a break-up of the $300,000 in the deed, orders, judgment, or during the later period.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion Under S 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) to Determine the Terms of a Settlement / After Proceedings Settled and Judgment Entered by Consent; Commercial List Duty Judge
Outcome
Third Defendant's notice of motion of 24 June 2015 dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['settlement of Proceedings' 'implied Terms' 'tax Implications of Settlement Payments' 'costs Allocation' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 73']
['procedure' 'contract' 'employment'] ['settlement of Proceedings' 'implied Terms' 'tax Implications of Settlement Payments' 'costs Allocation' 'civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) S 73']

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

Notice of Motion Under S 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (nsw) to Determine the Terms of a Settlement / After Proceedings Settled and Judgment Entered by Consent; Commercial List Duty Judge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a term should be implied into the Settlement requiring the HSU to cooperate with Mr Mylan in identifying the taxable component of the $300,000 judgment sum and to accept his genuine assessment of that component.' 'Whether orders should be made under s 73 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW) to give effect to the alleged terms of the Settlement.']

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed implied term did not satisfy the requirements for implication because it was too uncertain to provide business efficacy and raised unresolved questions about what cooperation required, when it was required, how the HSU would assess the genuineness of Mr Mylan's taxable-component assessment, how that assessment would be reconciled with the HSU's own tax obligations, and how loss would be assessed. In any event, the Court would decline discretionary relief under s 73 because Mr Mylan had not taken up the HSU's invitation to nominate a break-up of the $300,000 in the deed, orders, judgment, or during the later period.

Court Disposition

Third Defendant's notice of motion of 24 June 2015 dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The third defendant's notice of motion of 24 June 2015 is dismissed with costs."]