FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1514
SLIP RULE – orders incomplete and contained a clerical error – orders republished – orders take effect from date of earlier publication.
Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1001
GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED v LES LANSCAR AND CONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
ACD 15 OF 2006BUCHANAN J
28 SEPTEMBER 2007
SYDNEY
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 15 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
ApplicantAND:
LES LANSCAR
First RespondentCONSTRUCTION, FORESTRY, MINING AND ENERGY UNION
Second Respondent
JUDGE:
BUCHANAN J
DATE OF ORDER:
28 SEPTEMBER 2007
WHERE MADE:
SYDNEY
BY CONSENT THE COURT DECLARES THAT:
1.a) By making a representation on 9 February 2005 to Paul Papas, a director of Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited, to the effect that in order to work on the Avenue Apartments site (a site at the corner of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue, Turner in the Australian Capital City), painters were obliged to join the second respondent, and advising, encouraging or inciting Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited via Mr Papas to refuse to make use of painting services offered by persons who were not members of the second respondent (whether they were or should have been employees or independent contractors), the first respondent contravened s 298S(2)(a) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
b)By making a representation on 9 February 2005 to Paul Papas, a director of Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited, to the effect that in order to work on the Avenue Apartments site, (a site at the corner of Barry Drive and Northbourne Avenue, Turner in the Australian Capital City), painters were obliged to join the second respondent, and thereby intending to coerce Papas Painting Contractors Pty Limited via Mr Papas to refuse to make use of painting services offered by any of its employees who were not members of the second respondent, the first respondent contravened s 298S(2)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
c)By the actions of the first respondent referred to in paragraph 1(a) and 1(b) above, the second respondent contravened s 298S(2)(a) and s 298S(2)(b) of the pre-reform Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).
BY CONSENT THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
2. a) a penalty of $2,000 be imposed upon the first respondent in respect of the contraventions referred to in Declarations 1(a) and 1(b) above;
b)a penalty of $10,000 be imposed upon the second respondent in respect of the contraventions referred to in Declaration 1(c) above;
c)the penalties referred to in paragraphs 2(a) and 2(b) above be paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund within 28 days of the date of these orders.
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
3.The declarations and orders above take effect on and from 4 July 2007.
Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
ACD 15 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
GREGORY CHARLES ALFRED
ApplicantAND:
LES…
Continue reading Alfred v Lanscar
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Alfred v Lanscar [2007] FCA 1514
- Case
- [2007] FCA 1514
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the terms of the contract, the conduct of the parties, and whether the breach was material. The key issue was whether the failure to transfer ownership constituted a breach of a condition or a warranty. A breach of condition allows the innocent party to terminate the contract and sue for damages, while a breach of warranty only entitles the innocent party to claim damages. The court analysed the specific terms of the contract and the surrounding circumstances to determine the nature of the obligation breached.
In determining the nature of the obligation, the court found that the failure to transfer ownership was a breach of a condition in the contract. The court reasoned that the contract explicitly required the transfer of ownership by a certain date, and Lanscar's failure to do so was a fundamental breach. Consequently, Alfred was entitled to terminate the contract and seek damages for the loss incurred. The court awarded Alfred compensation for the loss resulting from the breach and made the necessary declarations.
Orders
Orders of the court
3. The declarations and orders above take effect on and from 4 July 2007.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: BUCHANAN J
Full text does not contain this section.