Legal Research
Cases
Hills v Sutton

Hills v Sutton

Case [2007] FCA 2033 18 December 2007

Breach of Contract

Unconscionable Conduct

Compensatory Damages

Civil Penalty

Penalties

Employment & Labour Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Hills v Sutton [2007] FCA 2033
WORKPLACE RELATIONS – Conduct of Employer – Where Employees told if they signed Australian Workplace Agreement there would be no change to their terms and conditions of employment – Where Australian Workplace Agreements reduced the quantum of redundancy payments to which the employees were entitled under certified agreement – Where multiple breaches of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) arose out of single course of conduct – Where respondents admitted liability before serious expense was incurred by the applicant – Relevant considerations in determining level of penalty – Penalty imposed
WORDS AND PHRASES – ‘permissible range’
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 167(2), 337(1), 337(2), 337(8), 337(9), 340(1)(b), 341, s 401(1), 407, 841.
Kelly v Fitzpatrick [2007] FCA 1080 referred to
McIlwain v Lamsay Food Packaging Pty Ltd (2006) 158 IR 181 referred to
NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Consumer and Competition Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 not followed
Ponzio v B & P Caelli Constructions Pty Ltd (2007) 158 FCR 543 followed
SAMUEL HILLS v JAMES SUTTON AND ADAM SUTTON
VID OF 2007 79
TRACEY J
18 DECEMBER 2007
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

VID 79 OF 2007

BETWEEN:

SAMUEL HILLS
Applicant

AND:

JAMES SUTTON
First Respondent

ADAM SUTTON
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

TRACEY J

DATE OF ORDER:

18 DECEMBER 2007

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

BY CONSENT THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (“the Act”) in respect of Rajmund Rajko Lah.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Emmanuel Portelli.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Mohamed Abdi.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Aaron Renfrey.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Adam Harding.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Bruno Battaglini.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Josip Novakovic.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Rodney Bradley.
On 5 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 401(1) of the Act in respect of Russell Harding.
On 18 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 341(1) of the Act in respect of Rajmund Rajko Lah.
On 18 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 341(1) of the Act in respect of Emmanuel Portelli.
On 18 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 341(1) of the Act in respect of Mohamed Abdi.
On 18 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 341(1) of the Act in respect of Aaron Renfrey.
On 18 April 2006 the first respondent contravened s 341(1) of the Act in respect of Adam Harding.
On 18 April…

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 Hills v Sutton

Details

AGLC: Hills v Sutton [2007] FCA 2033
Case: [2007] FCA 2033
Decision Date: 18 December 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Hills v Sutton, the applicants, who were employees of Finlay Engineering Pty Ltd, brought proceedings against their employers, James Sutton and Adam Sutton, for breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). The applicants claimed that the employers had misled them into signing Australian Workplace Agreements (AWAs) by telling them there would be no change to their terms and conditions of employment, when in fact the AWAs reduced their redundancy payments. The legal issues before the court were whether the penalties proposed by the parties for the breaches were appropriate and whether part of the penalties should be paid to the applicants to compensate them for their losses.

The court found that the employers had indeed misled the applicants and that the penalties proposed by the parties were appropriate. The court noted that while there were multiple contraventions by the respondents of the relevant sections of the Act, those contraventions formed part of a single course of conduct which was intended to persuade each of the nine employees to become a party to an AWA. The court also noted that the consequences for each of the employees were serious, with the longer serving members of the group suffering the most, and that there was a strong need for general deterrence of the type of conduct engaged in by the respondents.

The court further found that it was appropriate to use part of the penalties imposed on the respondents to compensate partially the individual employees for their losses, with the balance to be paid to the Commonwealth. The court made orders declaring that the respondents contravened various sections of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) and imposing penalties of $20,000 on James Sutton and $6,000 on each respondent for the contraventions of ss 337(8) and 337(9) of the Act. The court also made orders for the payment of the penalties to the applicants and the Commonwealth.

In conclusion, the court found that the penalties proposed by the parties for the breaches of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) were appropriate and that it was just and equitable to use part of the penalties to compensate the applicants for their losses. The court imposed the penalties and made orders for their payment to the applicants and the Commonwealth.

Orders