DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Dee v CFP Management Pty Ltd [2005] QDC 349
PARTIES:
Hamish Robbie Dee
Plaintiff
CFP Management Pty Ltd
Defendant
FILE NO/S:
D1368/03
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 $18,143.53
2. Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including reserve costs to be assessed on the Magistrates Court scale.
CATCHWORDS:
COUNSEL:
G Beacham for the Plaintiff
T Bradley for the Defendant
SOLICITORS:
Hunt & 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.
The Plaintiff, a stockbroker, was employed by the Defendant under an employment contract dated 29 March 2002.
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 not later than the 15th of the following month.
…
4.8 Applicable Legislation
The terms and conditions of your employment set out in this…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Dee 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 349
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was tasked with determining whether CFP Management was liable to Dee for the claimed amount. This required assessing whether Dee had indeed performed work for which payment was due and if there were any valid deductions that CFP Management could lawfully make. The court had to consider the terms of Dee’s employment, any agreements between the parties, and relevant statutory obligations concerning wage payments and superannuation.
The Magistrates Court found in favour of Dee, determining that the defendant was liable for the full amount claimed. The court ruled that Dee was entitled to the unpaid wages and superannuation contributions for the period in question. The court held that the defendant had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate the claimed deductions, thereby affirming Dee’s entitlement to the full amount of $18,143.53. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay Dee's costs of the proceeding, including reserve costs, to be assessed on the Magistrates Court scale.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Defendant to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of $18,143.53
2. Defendant to pay the Plaintiff’s costs of and incidental to the proceeding including reserve costs to be assessed on the Magistrates 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.