Legal Research
Cases
Arthurson v Victoria

Arthurson v Victoria

Case [2001] VSC 244 27 July 2001

Implied Terms

Admissibility of Evidence

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Insep

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

No. 8342 of 1997

DAVID MARK ARTHURSON	First Plaintiff
MALCOLM PETER DAVEY	Second Plaintiff
KEITH GEORGE WALKER	Third Plaintiff
CHRISTINE PATRICIA McINTYRE	Fourth Plaintiff
HENRY THOMAS BUTTON	Sixth Plaintiff
v
STATE OF VICTORIA	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28-31 May; 1, 4-7 June 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 July 2001
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Arthurson and Ors v State of Victoria
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSC 244

---

Police – Contract of Employment with Crown – Appointment to new position – whether any implied term in contractual relationship with employer concerning subsidised
housing – estoppel not established – no implied term – admissibility of post-contract conduct on implication of a term.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiffs	Mr J. Beach QC with Mr B. Lawrence	Holding Redlich
For the Defendant	Mr J. Hammond QC with Mr M. Rinaldi	Freehills

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Parties................................................................................................................................................... 2

History and Nature of Dispute........................................................................................................ 2

Issues.................................................................................................................................................... 5

Facts...................................................................................................................................................... 6

Contract Between Plaintiffs and Employer................................................................................ 25

Consideration.................................................................................................................................... 67

Estoppel.............................................................................................................................................. 67

Damages............................................................................................................................................. 75

A. Sergeant Arthurson.............................................................................................................. 80

B. Sergeant Davey..................................................................................................................... 82

C. Sergeant Walker................................................................................................................... 82

D. Sergeant McIntyre................................................................................................................ 83

E. Mr Button............................................................................................................................... 84

Summary............................................................................................................................................ 85

HIS HONOUR:

A proceeding instituted by writ in which five plaintiffs seek declaratory relief and damages against their employer, arising out of alleged breaches of their contracts of employment.

Parties

The first plaintiff, David Mark Arthurson ("Sergeant Arthurson"), is a sergeant employed in the Victorian Police Force ("The Force"), stationed at Hurstbridge.

The second plaintiff, Malcolm Peter Davey ("Sergeant Davey"), is a senior sergeant employed in the Force, stationed at Kyabram.

The third plaintiff, Keith George Walker ("Sergeant Walker"), is a sergeant employed in the Force, stationed at Warrandyte.

The fourth plaintiff, Christine Patricia McIntyre ("Sergeant McIntyre"), is a sergeant employed in the Force, stationed at Diamond Creek.

Each of the said plaintiffs is in charge of the police station where he or she is stationed. There was a fifth plaintiff but he is no longer a party to the proceeding.

The sixth plaintiff, Henry Thomas Button ("Mr Button"), was a chief inspector employed in the Force, in the N-District No. 2 Division at Swan Hill. He retired from the Force on 17 July 1999.

The defendant, the State of Victoria ("the State"), is sued representing the Crown in the right of the State of Victoria pursuant to the Crown Proceedings Act (1958) – see s.23.

History and Nature of Dispute

Each of the plaintiffs joined the Force many years ago. Sergeant Arthurson was appointed a constable on 10 March 1981, Sergeant Davey was sworn in as a constable on 14 October 1971, Sergeant Walker was sworn in as a constable on 26 May 1975, Sergeant McIntyre was appointed a constable on 5 June 1972, and Mr Button was sworn in as a constable on 14 November 1966.

Sergeant Arthurson was appointed a sergeant in 1990; Sergeant Davey was appointed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Arthurson v Victoria

Details

AGLC: Arthurson v State of Victoria [2001] VSC 244
Case: [2001] VSC 244
Decision Date: 27 July 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Arthurson v Victoria, the plaintiff sought to challenge the decision of the defendant to withdraw a housing subsidy provided to police officers in the State of Victoria. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the plaintiff argued that there was an implied term in the contractual relationship with the employer concerning the provision of subsidised housing. The defendant maintained that no such term existed and that the withdrawal of the housing subsidy did not breach any contractual obligation.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether there was an implied term in the contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the provision of subsidised housing. The court also considered the admissibility of post-contract conduct on the implication of a term. The court had to determine whether the conduct of the parties subsequent to the execution of the employment contract could be used to establish the implication of a term. The court examined the principles of estoppel and whether the doctrine of estoppel could be applied in this context.

The court found that the plaintiff had not established any estoppel that could lead to the implication of a term in the contractual relationship. The court held that the conduct of the parties subsequent to the execution of the employment contract was not admissible to establish the implication of a term. The court held that the contract of employment did not contain any express term or implication that the housing subsidy would be provided indefinitely. The court held that there was no implied term in the contractual relationship concerning the provision of subsidised housing. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the withdrawal of the housing subsidy constituted a breach of contract. The court held that the defendant was not estopped from withdrawing the housing subsidy.

The court ordered that the plaintiff's claim be dismissed with costs. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish any estoppel that could lead to the implication of a term in the contractual relationship. The court held that the conduct of the parties subsequent to the execution of the employment contract was not admissible to establish the implication of a term. The court held that the defendant was not estopped from withdrawing the housing subsidy. The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.

Orders