DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
Griffin v Grigg [2013] QDC 261
PARTIES:
LLOYD LENNON GRIFFIN
(plaintiff)
v
ALAN CRAWFORD GRIGG
(defendant)
FILE NO/S:
3876/10
PROCEEDING:
Trial
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
22 October 2013
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
18, 19, 20, 21, 22 February, 9, 10 September 2013
JUDGE:
Rafter S.C. DCJ
ORDERS:
1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $3,188.39, including $688.39 interest to the date of judgment.
2. The defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:
EMPLOYMENT LAW – EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIP – ASCERTAINING EXISTENCE AND NATURE OF RELATIONSHIP – where the plaintiff entered into a verbal agreement with the defendant to operate a butcher shop – where discussions between the plaintiff and defendant were on the basis that the plaintiff would be employed on a casual basis – where the plaintiff was employed to be the manager of the business – whether the plaintiff was engaged as a casual employee or a full time employee
EMPLOYMENT LAW – REMUNERATION – AMOUNT – where the plaintiff worked for approximately six and a half years – where the plaintiff was paid an hourly rate – where the plaintiff was paid a weekly amount in accordance with a verbal agreement made with the defendant – where the plaintiff recorded his own daily hours and wage in a wage book – where the plaintiff claimed that he worked longer hours than he recorded – where the plaintiff claimed he was not paid his entitlements during the period of employment – whether the plaintiff is owed remuneration in relation to this underpayment – whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover in respect of unworked hours – whether the defendant waived the performance of any work in respect of the disputed hours – whether the plaintiff actually worked the hours for which he claimed remuneration
LIMITATION OF ACTIONS – CONTRACTS, TORTS AND PERSONAL ACTIONS –WHEN TIME BEGINS TO RUN – PARTICULAR CAUSES OF ACTION – ACTION ON CONTRACT – where the plaintiff provided equipment for use in the shop – where the plaintiff claimed that the defendant agreed to purchase the equipment – where a new item of equipment was purchased and paid for by the plaintiff – where the defendant agreed to repay the plaintiff – whether the obligation to repay arose upon making the loan – whether the plaintiff’s claim for repayment of the loan is statute barred
CONTRACTS – GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES – FORMATION OF CONTRACT – UNCERTAINTY – where the defendant purchased a vehicle for the plaintiff’s use in the business – where the defendant claimed that the terms upon which the vehicle was provided to the plaintiff required the plaintiff to assume responsibility for expenses after the first year – where the plaintiff claimed there was no such agreement – whether there was a concluded agreement between the plaintiff and defendant – whether the terms of the agreement were certain
Australian Workers Union v BlueScope Steel Ltd [2007] NSWIRComm 1022, cited
Automatic Fire…
Continue reading Griffin v Grigg
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Griffin v Grigg [2013] QDC 261
- Case
- [2013] QDC 261
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine the nature of the employment relationship between the parties, whether the plaintiff was owed unpaid wages, whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for unworked hours, and whether the defendant waived the performance of any work in respect of the disputed hours. The court also needed to decide whether the plaintiff actually worked the hours for which he claimed remuneration. Furthermore, the court had to ascertain when the cause of action for the recovery of a loan arose and whether it was statute-barred. The court also needed to determine if there was a concluded agreement regarding the terms of the provision of a vehicle for the plaintiff's use in the business, specifically whether the plaintiff was to assume responsibility for expenses after the first year.
The court found that the plaintiff was employed as a full-time manager and was owed unpaid wages. The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for unworked hours, and the defendant had waived the performance of any work in respect of the disputed hours. The court also found that the plaintiff actually worked the hours for which he claimed remuneration. The court held that the cause of action for the recovery of a loan arose upon making the loan, and the plaintiff’s claim for repayment of the loan was not statute-barred. Finally, the court found that there was a concluded agreement between the parties that the plaintiff was to assume responsibility for expenses after the first year.
The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $3,188.39, including $688.39 interest to the date of judgment, and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The defendant pay to the plaintiff the sum of $3,188.39, including $688.39 interest to the date of judgment.
2. The defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed.
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.