Kapmeyer v Damstra Mining Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLC 28

Kapmeyer v Damstra Mining Services Pty Ltd [2007] NSWLC 28

The employment contract between Mr Kapmeyer and Damstra was partly oral and partly written. Its payment term was that Damstra would pay its base rate and, where a mine required a higher rate, the amount required by the mine site. Clause 25 of the Bulga Enterprise Agreement was not an express term because neither party to the employment discussions knew of it and the relevant statements about being paid the same as Bulga miners were not objectively contractual promises. Clause 25 was not an implied term because its implication was not necessary for the reasonable or effective operation of the employment contract. Accordingly the plaintiff could not recover the claimed additional payments...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Contract Employment Claim / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Judgment for the defendant.
Legal Topics
['privity of Contract' 'contract Construction' 'implied Terms' 'enterprise Agreement Rates of Pay' 'casual Employment']
['contract Law' 'employment Law'] ['privity of Contract' 'contract Construction' 'implied Terms' 'enterprise Agreement Rates of Pay' 'casual Employment']

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

Civil Contract Employment Claim / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What was the basis upon which the plaintiff was paid by Damstra when engaged at Bulga?' 'What were the terms of the contract of employment between Mr Kapmeyer and Damstra?' 'Was Mr Kapmeyer entitled under the contract of employment to be paid pursuant to Clause 25 of the Enterprise Agreement?' 'Quantum.']

Ratio Decidendi

The employment contract between Mr Kapmeyer and Damstra was partly oral and partly written. Its payment term was that Damstra would pay its base rate and, where a mine required a higher rate, the amount required by the mine site. Clause 25 of the Bulga Enterprise Agreement was not an express term because neither party to the employment discussions knew of it and the relevant statements about being paid the same as Bulga miners were not objectively contractual promises. Clause 25 was not an implied term because its implication was not necessary for the reasonable or effective operation of the employment contract. Accordingly the plaintiff could not recover the claimed additional payments...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendant.

Orders

  • ['There will be judgment and verdict for the defendant.' 'Costs follow the event.' "The plaintiff is to pay the defendant's costs and disbursements on an ordinary basis as agreed." 'In default of agreement within 28 days, the costs are to be assessed under the Legal Profession Act.']