Allison v Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd

Case

[2018] TASFC 5

11 September 2018


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
Allison v Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd [2018] TASFC 5 [2018] TASFC 5 11 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned a dispute between Allison and Tuna Tasmania Pty Ltd. Allison had been employed by Tuna Tasmania and alleged that he had been induced to enter into a contract of employment by misrepresentations made by the company. He further alleged that the company had breached its fiduciary duty to him by entering into a partnership agreement with a third party without his knowledge or consent, which he claimed was a breach of the employment contract. The matter was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania.

The primary legal issues before the Full Court were whether Allison was entitled to raise new arguments on appeal, specifically concerning a breach of fiduciary duty based on a partnership agreement, when these arguments had not been raised or fully pursued at the trial. The Court also had to consider the nature of the contractual relationship between Allison and Tuna Tasmania and whether any misrepresentations had been made that vitiated the employment contract.

The Full Court held that Allison was not permitted to raise the argument concerning a breach of fiduciary duty based on the partnership agreement on appeal. This was because the point had not been properly taken or litigated at the trial, and to allow it to be raised on appeal would be unfair to the respondent and would depart from the established course of conduct at trial. The Court found that the trial judge had correctly determined the issues that were before him.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Commercial Law

  • Contract Law

  • Negligence & Tort

Legal Concepts

  • Appeal

  • Breach

  • Fiduciary Duty

  • Contract Formation

  • Estoppel

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

1

Cases Cited

10

Statutory Material Cited

0

Clay v Clay [2001] HCA 9