Algons Engineering Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd

Case [2000] QDC 40


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

REGISTRY: BRISBANE

NUMBER: 2111 of 1999

Plaintiff:

LYNNE BROOK

First Defendant:

JOAN McDERMOTT & ASSOCIATES PTY LTD

Second Defendant:

JOAN McDERMOTT

REASONS FOR JUDGEMENT

DELIVERED the fourteenth day of April, 2000.

This matter has had a long, somewhat convoluted, history. I shall refer to part of that

history later. The trial eventually came on before me for hearing on Monday, 20th September,

1999. Counsel concluded their final addresses at 4.20 pm on Friday, 1st October, 1999. The

pleadings, which have been much amended, are lengthy, and raise numerous issues for my

determination.

The story behind the litigation is, however, a fairly simple one. The second defendant

- whom I shall hereafter refer to as either the second defendant or as “McDermott” - has had

many years experience in the recruitment and management consultancy business. Prior to

1995 she had worked in this business as the Queensland managing partner of an organisation

referred to as the “Intek Group.” Following some differences with the other members of that

organisation she left the Intek Group, and established the first defendant (which I shall refer to as the first defendant or as “the defendant company”) to continue her work in Queensland.

As I understand it, she and the defendant company retained the Queensland clients of the Intek

Group. The defendant company operated from premises on the Gold Coast which were

referred to as “serviced offices,” leased - for six months - from a company referred to as

Servcorp. In November, 1995 the defendant company advertised in the Gold Coast Bulletin,

seeking two “professional recruitment consultants.”

The plaintiff - whom I shall hereafter refer to as either the plaintiff or Brook - was in

late 1995 employed as a an operations manager by Ashtons Removals. In November of that

year she saw the advertisement placed by the first defendant. She made application for the

position, and was, after a couple of interviews, appointed to a position with the second

defendant which was designated “senior recruitment consultant.” She resigned from her

employ with Ashtons Removals on 28th November, 1995, and commenced her new position

with the first defendant on Tuesday, 5th December, 1995. On that day she signed a document

headed “Offer of Appointment.” Notwithstanding the pleadings, the parties are now agreed

that that document (subject to the defendants’ application for rectification) sets out the basis

of the plaintiff’s employment by the first defendant.1

In June, 1996 the plaintiff was given the title “General Manager/Recruitment” by the

first defendant, and her base salary was increased.

The second defendant was a candidate for the office of Mayor of the Gold Coast in the

election of March, 1997. It is clear that her campaigning involved a considerable commitment

by her, at least so far as her time was concerned.

On 9th April, 1997 the plaintiff spoke with the second defendant, and her employment

was ended that day. The circumstances of her leaving are contentious.

The plaintiff then commenced working on her own behalf as…

Continue reading Algons Engineering Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Algons Engineering Pty Ltd v Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd [2000] QDC 40
Case
[2000] QDC 40
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Lynne Brook (the plaintiff) brought an action against Joan McDermott and Associates Pty Ltd and Joan McDermott (the defendants) in the District Court of Queensland, alleging various breaches of contract and defamation. The defendants counterclaimed, asserting that the plaintiff had breached the terms of her contract of employment. The court found that the defendants had not proven their claims and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for misleading conduct and defamation. The court assessed the plaintiff's damages at $40,000.00, with interest, and awarded her a total of $43,577.79. The court also noted that the defendants' conduct during the trial had aggravated the damages suffered by the plaintiff. The court will hear counsel as to the most appropriate order for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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

Full text does not contain this section.