Legal Research
Cases
Halls v McCardle and Ors

Halls v McCardle and Ors

Link copied

Case Copied 25 February 2014 14 min read

Contents

On this page

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

HALLS v KR & MA MCARDLE & SONS PTY LTD & ORS

[2014] FCCA 316

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act general protections court application – no certificate under s.369 of the Act because no application made by applicant under s.365 of the Act in the first instance – meaning of “must not” make an application.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009
Fair Work Bill 2009
Whistle Blowers Protection Act 1993
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001

Rentuza v West Side Auto Wholesale [2009] FMCA 1022
Lawrence v Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 10089
Birch v Wesco Electrics (1966) Pty Ltd [2012] FMCA 5

Applicant:

JEREMY CHRISTOPHER HALLS

First Respondent:

KR & MA MCARDLE & SONS PTY LD

Second Respondent:

CAMERON NOMINEES PTY LTD

Third Respondent:

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED

File Number:

ADG 336 of 2013

Judgment of:

Judge Lindsay

Hearing date:

9 December 2013

Date of Last Submission:

9 December 2013

Delivered at:

Adelaide

Delivered on:

25 February 2014

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In Person

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Not Applicable

Counsel for the First Respondent:

Ms Kaukas

Solicitors for the First Respondent:

Donaldson Walsh Lawyers

Counsel for the Second Respondent:

Mr Mills

Solicitors for the Second Respondent:

Hunt and Hunt

Counsel for the Third Respondent:

Ms Kerr

Solicitors for the Third Respondent:

Woolworths Limited (Legal Department)

ORDERS

The application be summarily dismissed under Rule 13.10(c) of the Rules of Court.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

AT ADELAIDE

ADG 336 of 2013

JEREMY CHRISTOPHER HALLS

Applicant

And

KA & MA MCARDLE & SONS PTY LTD

First Respondent

CAMERON NOMINEES PTY LTD

Second Respondent

WOOLWORTHS LIMITED

Third Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

This application seeks orders against the applicant’s employer, and a company to whom his employer provided services and a company to whom that second respondent in turn provided services.
The applicant is a truck driver. He drives semi-trailers. His employers provided the trucks and at the times relevant to this application he worked at two sites where his employer had a contract with the second respondent who in turn had a contract with the third respondent (and also Big W) to provide trucks and drivers for the delivery of goods to the third respondent (in Big W) at various sites in Adelaide. The applicant was employed by the first respondent on 2 October 2013. He acknowledges the employment was probationary but says that the length of the probationary period was a matter that was only agreed verbally between him and his employer.
On the day prior to his employment he had undergone a site-induction experience at Woolworths at Gepps Cross.
The events giving rise to the action, appear to have occurred on 19 October 2013.
There is some confusion relating to dates in affidavit filed by the application in support of his application.
I have already noted his claim ([3] of his Affidavit) that his employment commenced on 2 October 2013.
In dealing with his key complaint (in [6] of his…

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 Halls v McCardle and Ors 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: [2014] FCCA 316
Decision Date: 25 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned a dispute between the plaintiff, Mr. Halls, and the defendants, Mr. McCardle and others, concerning a property transaction. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the defendants had breached their contractual obligations to the plaintiff in relation to the sale of a property, and if so, what remedies were available to the plaintiff. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the defendants had failed to provide vacant possession of the property as required by the contract, and whether this failure constituted a repudiation of the contract.

Judge Lindsay found that the defendants had indeed breached the contract by failing to deliver vacant possession of the property on the settlement date. The Court reasoned that the obligation to provide vacant possession was a fundamental term of the contract, and the defendants' inability to fulfil this obligation amounted to a repudiation. The Court applied the principles of contract law concerning breach and repudiation, noting that a party's conduct can demonstrate an intention not to be bound by the contract.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the contract be terminated and awarded damages to the plaintiff.

Orders