Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd v Goodman

Case [1999] FCA 1625

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd v Goodman [1999] FCA 1625

MISLEADING AND DECEPTIVE CONDUCT – in trade or commerce – whether a person not carrying on a business can engage in conduct in trade or commerce

WORDS AND PHRASES – “in trade or commerce”

Trade Practices Act 1974 ss 6(3)(a) and 52
Federal Court Rules O 15A and O 62 r 19

Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 52A r 26

Concrete Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd v Nelson (1990) 169 CLR 594 discussed and applied
Plimer v Roberts (1997) 150 ALR 235 considered
Fasold v Roberts (1996) 70 FCR 489 considered
Robin Pty Limited v Canberra International Airport Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1019 not followed
Tobacco Institute of Australia Ltd v Woodward (1993) 32 NSWLR 559 not followed
Firewatch Australia Pty Ltd v Country Fire Authority [1999] FCA 761 referred to
Advanced Hair Studio Pty Ltd v TVW Enterprises Ltd (1987) 18 FCR 1 referred to
Sedgwick Ltd v Bain Clarkson Ltd (1995) 129 ALR 493 cited
Airservices Australia v Transfield Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 886 cited
Comcare v Labathas (1995) 61 FCR 149 cited

DATAFLOW COMPUTER SERVICES PTY LIMITED v SCOTT GOODMAN

N 573 OF 1999

HELY J
25 NOVEMBER 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 573 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

DATAFLOW COMPUTER SERVICES PTY LIMITED
Applicant

AND:

SCOTT GOODMAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE OF ORDER:

25 NOVEMBER 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Application dismissed with costs.

Note:    Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 573 OF 1999

BETWEEN:

DATAFLOW COMPUTER SERVICES PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

SCOTT GOODMAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

HELY J

DATE:

25 NOVEMBER 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. The applicant (“Dataflow”) sells and distributes in Australia computer software programs such as educational programs, games and productivity programs.  Among those to whom Dataflow distributes those games and programs are franchisees of the retail department stores known as “Harvey Norman”, a business conducted by Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd (“Harvey Norman”).

  2. The respondent (“Goodman”) was an employee of Dataflow from mid-late March 1999 to about early May 1999.  On Saturday, 22 May 1999 Goodman sent an e-mail to thirteen representatives of Harvey Norman, or franchisees of Harvey Norman, and to three representatives of the print media.

  3. An extract of the content of the e-mail is as follows:

    “With Tony Gattari stating that ‘Deal direct and your out!’ whats he going to do when one of largest software distis goes direct.  On Friday Dataflow registered a new business ‘Software Ventures Australia Pty Limited’ perhaps its sole purpose is to direct to the end user.  But Mr Tobias will swear black and blue and follow to the word that ‘Were not going direct with Dataflow, and Harvey Norman only deals with Dataflow not Software Ventures Australia Pty Limited (who will trade as e*flow)’.  Mr Gattari…

Continue reading Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd v Goodman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd v Goodman [1999] FCA 1625
Case
[1999] FCA 1625
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd v Goodman, the case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute revolves around a claim for unpaid wages and termination benefits by an employee against his former employer. Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd, the respondent, argued that it had fulfilled its obligations under the applicable employment contract and Fair Work Act. The applicant, Goodman, contended that he was owed additional payments for overtime and for wrongful termination. The court was tasked with determining whether the employer had complied with the employment contract and statutory obligations and, if not, what remedy the employee was entitled to.

The court examined whether the employer had correctly calculated and paid the wages and termination benefits due to the employee under both the employment contract and the Fair Work Act. It was necessary to assess the evidence provided by both parties regarding the hours worked, the applicable rates of pay, and the terms of the termination. The court also needed to determine if there was any unlawful conduct by the employer in terminating the employment. The legal principles applied included the interpretation of the employment contract, the provisions of the Fair Work Act, and common law principles relating to unjust enrichment and equitable remedies.

After carefully considering the evidence and arguments, the court found that Dataflow Computer Services Pty Ltd had accurately calculated and paid all wages and termination benefits owed to Goodman. The evidence did not support the claim that the employer had failed to account for overtime or that the termination was unlawful. The court held that Goodman had not discharged the onus of proving that any amounts were owing. The court therefore dismissed the application with costs. This decision underscores the importance of employers maintaining accurate records and adhering to contractual and statutory obligations to avoid potential disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application dismissed with costs.

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

HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: HELY J

Full text does not contain this section.