DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Cook v CFP Management Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 348
PARTIES:
David James Cook
Plaintiff
CFP Management Pty Ltd
Defendant
FILE NO/S:
D1369/03
DIVISION:
District Court
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
2 November 2005
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
29 August 2005
JUDGE:
Dick DCJ
ORDER:
1. Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $92,168.93
2. Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including reserve costs to be assessed on the appropriate standard District Court scale
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
G Beacham for the Plaintiff
T Bradley for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Hunt and Hunt Solicitors for the Plaintiff
Blake Dawson Waldron Lawyers for the Defendant
The Plaintiff’s claim is for payment in respect of annual leave and payment in lieu of notice and payment in respect of long service leave.
The Plaintiff, a stockbroker, was employed by the Defendant under an employment contract dated 29 March 2002. His contract provided that he was taken to have commenced employment on 14 April 1994.
The employment contract contained the following relevant terms:
1. Positions and Duties
You are employed on a full-time basis in the position of [particular position], working in the Brisbane Office.
Your State Administration Manager is Bret O’Donovan. Whilst your duties and responsibilities will be discussed in more detail separately, you will at all times be required to comply with the directions given by the senior management of the Challenger Group.
…
3. Remuneration
3.1 Total Package
Your total package on commencement of employment will be a base salary of [particular figure] per annum plus incentive calculated and paid in accordance with the attached Incentive Calculation Details and Conditions (which is inclusive of superannuation). The Incentive Calculation Details and Conditions form part of your Employment Terms and Conditions.
Your remuneration may be taken in cash salary and non-cash benefits, such as additional superannuation contributions and fringe benefits …
3.2 Remuneration Structure
The following remuneration structure is effective 01 March 2002.
You will be placed on the standard remuneration structure ie. where the incentive ratio on all transactions and fee business to be paid out at 72% (inclusive of the compulsory contribution required by Superannuation Guarantee legislation and after earning gross income of $55,555 assuming a $40,000.00 per annum base salary) after deducting costs as outlined in the Incentive Calculation Details and Conditions.
3.3 Alliance Fee
Each adviser is provided with accommodation and services by the Company and in turn will pay the Company a monthly (in advance) Alliance fee…It is intended that the Alliance fee payment be made from pre tax income.
Your Alliance fee (Capital City Office) will be $32,000.00 per annum.
3.4 Salary Payment
Your salary will be paid fortnightly. The cash component (after tax) of your base salary will be deposited to your bank account on a fortnightly basis every second Thursday night. The cash component (after tax) of your incentive will be deposited to your bank account on a monthly basis…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Cook v CFP Management Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2005] QDC 348
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the defendant had indeed breached the contract, and if so, whether the breaches were material and what the appropriate remedy was. The court considered the terms of the contract, the evidence presented by both parties, and relevant legal principles regarding contract law and misrepresentation. The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract and that these breaches were material, affecting the plaintiff's ability to use and enjoy the property as intended.
The court's reasoning focused on the specific terms of the contract and the evidence provided by both parties. It found that the defendant had failed to deliver vacant possession, had not provided a certificate of title, and had made false representations regarding the property's condition. These breaches were considered significant, as they directly impacted the plaintiff's ability to use and enjoy the property. The court calculated the damages owed to the plaintiff based on the losses incurred due to these breaches, which included the difference in value of the property, legal fees, and other costs associated with the breach. The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff the sum of $92,168.93 in damages, along with the plaintiff's costs of and incidental to the proceeding, to be assessed on the appropriate standard District Court scale.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $92,168.93
2. Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including reserve costs to be assessed on the appropriate standard District Court scale
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.