Day v Myer Stores Ltd

The case of Day v Myer Stores Limited concerns an application filed by Catherine Day against Myer Stores Limited, seeking relief for alleged breaches of her employment contract and associated claims under the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth). The dispute arose from Ms Day’s employment as Network Store Manager at Myer’s Melbourne store, which was allegedly compromised when she was asked to relocate and accept a demotion to Joint Network Company Store Manager at Knox City. Myer's motion to dismiss or strike out the trade practices claims, or alternatively, to transfer the matter to the County Court or Supreme Court of Victoria, was supported by affidavits and brought before the Court for determination.

The primary legal issue the Court had to decide was whether the trade practices claims were appropriately within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court, or if they should be dismissed or transferred to a state court. This hinged on whether the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable behaviour, as claimed by Ms Day, were indeed conduct in trade or commerce and therefore subject to the Federal Court’s jurisdiction under the Trade Practices Act. The Court had to assess whether the insertion of a relocation clause in a letter concerning her vehicle allowance allowance was a substantial alteration to her employment contract, and if it constituted misleading or deceptive conduct.

The Court ruled that the trade practices claims should be transferred to the County Court of Victoria. The reasoning was that the primary dispute centred on the terms of the employment contract, which fell outside the scope of the Trade Practices Act. The Court found that the relocation clause did not constitute a substantial alteration of the employment contract and therefore did not meet the threshold for federal jurisdiction under the Act. The Court also determined that the employment contract was governed by state law and the primary dispute was one of contract law, not trade or commerce as defined by the Act. As such, the motion to transfer was granted, and the trade practices claims were dismissed without prejudice.

In summary, the Court ordered the transfer of the case to the County Court of Victoria, dismissed the trade practices claims without prejudice, and allocated costs between the parties. This decision clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between state and federal courts in employment disputes and highlighted the requirements for conduct to be considered under the Trade Practices Act.