DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Isabella Litleton-Salmas
v
Omelnour Pty Ltd
(U2021/1153)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 12 MAY 2021

Settlement agreement – application dismissed

[1] This decision concerns an application by Ms Isabella Litleton-Salmas for an unfair dismissal remedy pursuant to s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[2] On 27 April 2021, Ms Litleton-Salmas sent to my chambers a settlement agreement bearing her signature. The agreement was also signed by Mr Samuel Youseff, on behalf of her former employer, Omelnour Pty Ltd, which trades as Fairfield City Medical Centre (respondent). The terms of settlement reflected an agreement reached by the parties in conference before me on 1 April 2021. Clauses 3.4 and 3.5 of the agreement provide that the parties release one another from liability connected to Ms Litleton-Salmas’ former employment with the respondent. Clause 3.1 requires the respondent to pay a settlement sum. Clause 3.9 provides that Ms Litleton-Salmas will discontinue the unfair dismissal application within seven days of the respondent paying the settlement sum. On 27 April 2021, the respondent advised my chambers that the settlement sum had been paid that day.

[3] On 10 May 2021, my associate wrote to Ms Litleton-Salmas stating that, despite reminders, she had not discontinued the unfair dismissal application, nor had she made any contact with the Commission since 27 April 2021. My associate advised Ms Litleton-Salmas that I proposed to dismiss the unfair dismissal application on 12 May 2021 after 2.00pm pursuant to s 587(1)(c) of the Act on the basis that, given the settlement agreement referred to above, the application had no reasonable prospects of success. Ms Litleton-Salmas has not sought to be heard.

[4] I consider that the settlement agreement is an accord and satisfaction which is a complete answer to Ms Litleton-Salmas’ unfair dismissal claim. This conclusion is unaffected by Ms Litleton-Salmas’ apparent breach of the settlement agreement by failing to discontinue her unfair dismissal application. She agreed to accept a payment to settle her claim. She has released the respondent from any liability connected to her employment, save in respect of certain matters which are not presently relevant. The Commission may have regard to the settlement in considering whether an application has no reasonable prospects of success for the purpose of s 587(1)(c) of the Act (see Australian Postal Corporation v Gorman [2011] FCA 975 at [31]-[33]). In light of the settlement agreement, the application has no reasonable prospects of success and I consider it appropriate to dismiss the application under s 587(1)(c).

[5] Ms Litleton-Salmas’ unfair dismissal application is therefore dismissed.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Isabella Litleton-Salmas v Omelnour Pty Ltd arose in the Federal Circuit Court, where the plaintiff sought to enforce a settlement agreement that had been reached with the defendant. The crux of the dispute was whether the settlement agreement was valid and binding, with the plaintiff arguing that the defendant had breached the terms of the agreement. The defendant, on the other hand, contended that the agreement was not binding due to a lack of consideration and was therefore unenforceable.

The legal issues the court had to address included whether the settlement agreement was valid and binding, and whether there was sufficient consideration to support the agreement. The court examined the terms of the agreement, the circumstances under which it was entered into, and whether there was a mutual exchange of promises that constituted consideration. The court also considered the principle of promissory estoppel and whether it applied in the circumstances of this case.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the settlement agreement was indeed valid and binding. It held that there was sufficient consideration for the agreement as both parties had exchanged promises and obligations that were mutually beneficial. The court also found that the principle of promissory estoppel did not apply in this case as it did not create an estoppel against the defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s application to enforce the settlement agreement. The court ordered that the application be dismissed and that the plaintiff pay the defendant’s costs of the application.

Isabella Litleton-Salmas v Omelnour Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established