GRAY v Chart Air Pty Ltd - [2011] FMCA 218

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GRAY v CHART AIR PTY LTD

[2011] FMCA 218

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Termination of employment – whether proceedings settled – contract made by correspondence between parties’ solicitors – agreement conditional upon the deed of settlement – whether agreement binding.

CONTRACT – Settlement negotiations – whether binding settlement agreement reached.

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s.548

Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments [2004] HCA 55; 218 CLR 471; 211 ALR 101; 79 ALJR 206
Humphris-Clark v Lazaridis [2010] NSWSC 318
Locnere Pty Ltd and Anor v Jakk's Bagel and Bread Co Pty Ltd [2003] NSWSC 1123
Maggbury Pty Ltd v Hafele Australia Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 70; (2001) 210 CLR 181; (2001) 185 ALR 152; (2001) 76 ALJR 246; [2002] ATPR 41-854; [2002] AIPC 91-778; 53 IPR 1; [2002] Aust Contract Reports 90-140; (2001) 22 Leg Rep 28
Masters v Cameron [1954] HCA 72; (1954) 91 CLR 353
Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13; (1950) 80 CLR 304

Applicant:

LACHLAN GRAY

Respondent:

CHART AIR PROPRIETARY LIMITED

File Number:

MLG 1361 of 2010

Judgment of:

Riethmuller FM

Hearing date:

3 November 2010

Date of Last Submission:

31 January 2011

Delivered at:

Melbourne

Delivered on:

1 April 2011

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Mr Molnar

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Coutler Roache Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Mr Sweet

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Cridlands MB Lawyers

ORDERS

The Respondent’s claim that the parties had settled the dispute in September 2010 be dismissed.
The affidavits of the parties filed to date, together with their written submissions be sealed in an envelope marked ‘Not to be opened other than on order of the Court’.
The Application be heard by another Federal Magistrate.
The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs.
The matter be adjourned to 6 April 2011 at 10.00 am for directions before Federal Magistrate Hartnett.
The Respondent be granted leave to appear by telephone on 6 April 2011.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT MELBOURNE

MLG 1361 of 2010

LACHLAN GRAY

Applicant

And

CHART AIR PROPRIETARY LIMITED

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

In this matter, an issue arose as to whether or not there was a binding agreement, settling the substantive proceedings between the parties. It was agreed that this issue be determined on the papers, given that there were no factual disputes and all of the communications have occurred by correspondence. The parties accordingly having filed written submissions.
This is an industrial action, which involved a termination of employment. On 7 September 2010 the parties attended mediation before the Industrial Commissioner Simpson. Following the mediation there were a number of offers and counter-offers exchanged between the parties. Ultimately, on 10 September 2010, the solicitors for the employer wrote, as follows:
I refer to your letter dated 9 September 2010.
Your client’s proposal is rejected. Notwithstanding previous correspondence, I am instructed to offer $XXXX gross until COB today. My client will not thereafter enter into any further negotiations.
It appears clear…

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.

Continue reading GRAY v Chart Air Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: GRAY v Chart Air Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 218
Case: [2011] FMCA 218
Decision Date: 1 April 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Gray v Chart Air Pty Ltd involved the Applicant, Gray, seeking to terminate their employment against the Respondent, Chart Air Pty Ltd. The matter came before the Federal Circuit Court, where the Applicant argued that the employment was terminated on grounds of redundancy. The Respondent, on the other hand, claimed that the dispute had been settled in September 2010, and sought to have the Applicant’s claim dismissed on that basis.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the parties had indeed settled the dispute in September 2010, and if so, whether the settlement agreement was binding. The court was required to determine the validity and enforceability of a contract that was allegedly made by correspondence between the parties’ solicitors, and whether this agreement was contingent upon the execution of a deed of settlement. The central issue was whether the exchange of correspondence between the solicitors constituted a binding agreement, even in the absence of a formal written settlement deed.

The court found that the parties had not settled the dispute in September 2010, as claimed by the Respondent. The court held that the agreement made by the solicitors through correspondence was not binding until a formal deed of settlement was executed. As the deed of settlement was never signed, the court concluded that the Respondent’s claim for dismissal should be rejected. The affidavits and submissions provided by the parties were sealed and ordered not to be opened except on the direction of the court. The application was to be heard by another Federal Magistrate, and the Respondent was directed to pay the Applicant’s costs. The matter was adjourned for further directions and the Respondent was granted leave to appear by telephone.

Orders

Orders of the court

The Respondent’s claim that the parties had settled the dispute in September 2010 be dismissed.

The affidavits of the parties filed to date, together with their written submissions be sealed in an envelope marked ‘Not to be opened other than on order of the Court’.

The Application be heard by another Federal Magistrate.

The Respondent pay the Applicant’s costs.

The matter be adjourned to 6 April 2011 at 10.00 am for directions before Federal Magistrate Hartnett.

The Respondent be granted leave to appear by telephone on 6 April 2011.

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.