Inches v Integrated Managed Services Pty Ltd - [2009] WADC 185

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: INCHES -v- INTEGRATED MANAGED SERVICES PTY LTD [2009] WADC 185

CORAM: O'BRIEN DCJ

HEARD: 5, 6 & 13 NOVEMBER 2009

DELIVERED : 3 DECEMBER 2009

FILE NO/S: CIV 1734 of 2008

BETWEEN: PAUL INCHES
Plaintiff
AND
INTEGRATED MANAGED SERVICES PTY LTD (ACN 088 574 485)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Plaintiff's claim for payment of completion bonus under contract of employment - Counterclaim for breach of contract by plaintiff - Whether plaintiff failed to comply with lawful instruction to provide information - Whether plaintiff breached restraint of trade clause in his employment contract - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Plaintiff's claim upheld
Counterclaim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr P McGowan
Defendant: Mr R Hooker

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: DLA Phillips Fox
Defendant: Mallesons Stephen Jaques

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Amoco Australia Pty Ltd v Rocca Bros Motor Engineering Co Pty Ltd (1973) 133 CLR 288
Ausdale Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sandford [2006] WASCA 191
Austra Tanks Pty Ltd v Running (1982) 2 NSWLR 840
Butt v Long (1953) 88 CLR 476
Cream v Bushcolt Pty Ltd [2004] WASCA 82
Lindner v Murdock's Garage (1950) 83 CLR 628
Masterclass Enterprises Pty Ltd v Bedshed Franchisors (WA) Pty Ltd [2008] WASCA 67
Nordenfelt v Maxim Nordenfelt Guns & Ammunition Co Ltd [1894] AC 535
Peters American Delicacy Co Ltd v Patricia's Chocolate & Candies Pty Ltd (1947) 77 CLR 574
Sear v Invocare Australia Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 30
TSV Holdings v Evans & Anor [2008] VSC 157

O'BRIEN DCJ:

Introduction

Mr Paul Inches is an industrial relations consultant. IMS is a labour hire firm.
On 15 May 2006 Mr Inches contracted with IMS to work for the Pilbara Iron Ore and Infrastructure Project ("the project").
IMS paid Mr Inches an agreed daily rate which varied according to whether Mr Inches was working in Perth or onsite in the Pilbara.
The Inches/IMS contract provided for the payment to Mr Inches of a completion bonus on being "demobilised" from the project subject to certain conditions.
On 18 May 2006, IMS contracted with Worley Parsons Services Pty Ltd (as agent for Pilbara Infrastructure Pty Ltd) to provide the services of Mr Inches to the project. The contract provided that Worley Parsons pay IMS a monthly sum.

The claim

Mr Inches' claim is that IMS has not paid him the agreed completion bonus. He also claims a payment of a living away from home allowance.
The defence narrowed during the trial. It is that Mr Inches is not entitled to the completion bonus because he did not comply with the agreed conditions for the bonus and that he "abandoned" his employment.
IMS abandoned its defences that Mr Inches breached his contract by failing to give notice of termination and that Mr Inches' departure from the project in March 2008 was the result of a "disciplinary and/or serious misconduct".
IMS also abandoned its defence to Mr Inches' claim for a living away from home allowance…

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 Inches v Integrated Managed Services 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: [2009] WADC 185
Decision Date: 3 DECEMBER 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Inches v Integrated Managed Services Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, Inches, sought payment of a completion bonus under the terms of his employment contract. The defendant, Integrated Managed Services Pty Ltd, counterclaimed for breach of contract by the plaintiff, alleging that Inches failed to comply with a lawful instruction to provide information and breached a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract. The dispute was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were whether the plaintiff had failed to comply with a lawful instruction to provide information and whether the plaintiff had breached a restraint of trade clause in his employment contract. The court had to determine whether these alleged breaches by the plaintiff justified the defendant in withholding the completion bonus. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the plaintiff was entitled to the completion bonus despite the defendant's counterclaim.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the terms of the employment contract and the specific clauses in question. The court found that the plaintiff had indeed failed to comply with the lawful instruction to provide information, and this constituted a breach of contract. The court also found that the plaintiff had breached the restraint of trade clause in his employment contract. However, the court held that the breaches by the plaintiff did not absolve the defendant from its obligation to pay the completion bonus. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to the completion bonus as per the terms of the employment contract.

The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff the completion bonus as per the employment contract. The court did not find the defendant's counterclaim to be justified, and therefore, the plaintiff was not required to compensate the defendant for any alleged breach of contract.

Orders