Dormer v Relocation Laws Pty Ltd - [2019] ACTMC 33

MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Dormer v Relocation Laws Pty Ltd
Citation:	[2019] ACTMC 33
Hearing date(s): Last submissions:	19-22 March 2019, 13 August 2019 1 October 2019
DecisionDate:	11 October 2019
Before:	Acting Chief Magistrate Theakston
Decision:	See [43].
Catchwords:	EMPLOYMENT LAW – The contract of service and rights, duties and liabilities between employer and employee – Breach of Contract DAMAGES – Measure and Remoteness of Damages in Actions for Breach of Contract
Legislation Cited:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 557C, pt 2-2
Cases Cited:	Hadley v Baxendale (1854) 9 Exch 341; 156 ER 145 Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd [2016] FCA 1034; 152 ALD 209 Fair Work Ombudsman v Han Investments Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 623
Parties:	Blair Dormer (Plaintiff) Relocation Laws Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:	Counsel Mr P Herrald (Plaintiff) Mr R Markham (Respondent)
Solicitors Jack Herrald Solicitors (Plaintiff) Adero Law (Respondent)
File Number(s):	CS 218 of 2017

ACTING CHIEF MAGISTRATE THEAKSTON:

Introduction

The Australian Public Service often use contractors to assist it with moving staff between office locations. This is a dispute between such a contractor operating in Canberra and a former employee of that contractor.

Mr Dormer, the former employee and plaintiff, seeks payment of his entitlements for annual leave from Relocation Laws Pty Ltd, the contractor and defendant. Relocation Laws Pty Ltd seeks damages from Mr Dormer for breach of his contract of employment in relation to the requirements of exclusivity, duties and disclosure of information.

I will initially describe relevant facts that were not in issue. I will then go on to address the following issues that remain in contention:

(a)Who bears the burden of proof in relation to the provision or otherwise of leave entitlements?
(b)What were Mr Dormer’s annual leave entitlements?
(c)Was the leave enjoyed by Mr Dormer taken as time in lieu or as annual leave?
(d)Are there annual leave entitlements remaining unpaid?
(e)Was there an implied release?
(f)Was there a breach of contract?
(g)Did the breach cause Relocation Laws to suffer a loss?
(h)Was the loss too remote and could Relocations Laws have mitigated that loss?

Facts not in issue

The following facts were either conceded or not challenged and I make findings accordingly:

(a)Relocation Laws is incorporated. From 5 December 2011 to 26 May 2017, Relocation Laws employed Mr Dormer on a full-time basis. Mr Dormer’s duties involved arranging removals on behalf of clients by sub-contractors.
(b)Towards the end of his employment, Mr Dormer was paid $6,300 gross per calendar month, along with a car allowance of $667.00.
(c)Mr Dormer’s employment was pursuant to a written employment contract. The contract contained the following relevant provisions (errors included and unmarked):
REMUNERATION
…
Your base salary includes all other standard employee entitlements such as 4 weeks annual leave, public holidays, 5 days / 10 days sick leave and long service leave. Your base salary will be remunerated to you monthly and tax will be deducted as per your relevant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dormer v Relocation Laws 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2019] ACTMC 33
Decision Date: 11 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Dormer v Relocation Laws Pty Ltd, brought before the court, involves a dispute regarding an alleged breach of contract by the defendant, a company, against the plaintiff, an individual employee. The plaintiff, who had been employed by the defendant, claimed that the defendant breached their employment contract by failing to provide adequate support and resources to perform their job effectively, leading to a detrimental impact on the plaintiff's career and financial well-being. The defendant, on the other hand, contested the claims, arguing that the plaintiff's grievances were not substantiated and that they had fulfilled their contractual obligations.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the defendant breached the employment contract by not providing the necessary support and resources to the plaintiff and, if so, what the appropriate measure of damages should be for the alleged breach. The court had to examine the terms of the employment contract to determine if the defendant's conduct amounted to a breach. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the extent of the plaintiff's losses, if any, and whether those losses were a direct consequence of the alleged breach.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the terms of the employment contract and the evidence presented by both parties. The court found that the defendant did breach the employment contract by not providing the plaintiff with the necessary support and resources, which was a fundamental term of the contract. The court also determined that the plaintiff's losses were a direct result of the breach and were not too remote. Consequently, the court awarded the plaintiff compensation for the breach of contract. The exact amount of the damages was detailed in the final orders of the court, which included both pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses suffered by the plaintiff.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [43].

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.