Knight v J Corp Pty Ltd - [1999] WADC 77

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: KNIGHT -v- J CORP PTY LTD [1999] WADC 77

CORAM: WISBEY DCJ

HEARD: 27-29 JANUARY, 29, 30 APRIL 1999

DELIVERED : 24 SEPTEMBER 1999

FILE NO/S: CIV 2484 of 1995

BETWEEN: MICHAEL JOHN KNIGHT
Plaintiff
AND
J CORP PTY LTD (009 063 076)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contracts - Contract for building supervision - Alleged breach by plaintiff in performance of work - Termination - Whether implied term as to termination - Wrongful termination of contract by defendant - Assessment of damages for wrongful termination.

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Judgment for plaintiff for $33,457.38.

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr M Holler
Defendant: Mr M Zilko

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: Summers Partners
Defendant: Durack & Zilko

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

Associated Newspapers Ltd v Bancks (1951) 83 CLR 332
Codelfa Construction Proprietary Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Suisse Atlantique Société d'Armement Maritime SA v NV Rotterdamsche Kolen Centrale (1967) 1 AC 361

Case(s) also cited:

BP Refinery (Westernport) Pty Ltd v Shire of Hastings (1977) 16 ALR 363
Bunge Corporation New York v Tradax Export SA Panama [1981] 1 WLR 711
Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337
Major v Bretherton (1928) 41 CLR 62
Sheppard v Council of Ryde (1957) 65 CLR 1
Shirlaw v Southern Foundries (1926) Limited [1939] 2 KB 206
Tramways Advertising Pty Ltd v Luna Park (NSW) Ltd (1938) 38 SR (NSW) 632

WISBEY DCJ: Michael John Knight, a 52 year old builder, brings these proceedings against J Corp Pty Ltd, a building company having substantial involvement in the construction and sale of project homes.
In the statement of claim the plaintiff relevantly alleges that -
1.he commenced work with the defendant as a building supervisor in late 1993 on an annual salary of $36,000, the provision of a car, and reimbursement of motor vehicle and telephone expenses. The monetary component of the salary package was increased to $38,000 in or about January/February 1994.
2.In or about December 1994 the defendant's building construction manager, Ren Boorsboom, persuaded the plaintiff to work on a subcontract basis, representing that the plaintiff would be provided with a minimum of 30 constructions at all times during the contract. As a result of Boorsboom's representations the plaintiff entered into a written contract on or about 1 January 1995 which relevantly provided:
(a)the plaintiff would provide his services to the defendant as a building supervisor for a period of two years;
(b)the defendant would pay the plaintiff the sum of 1.2 per cent of the contract price of all building works supervised by him, the sum of $300 for each completed individual maintenance work, and with a guarantee that he would earn no less than $50,000 per annum;
(c)the plaintiff would not be responsible for any loss sustained by the defendant howsoever arising and connected in any way with any building works;
3.Further and in the alternative the plaintiff claimed that there was an…

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 Knight v J Corp Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Knight v J Corp Pty Ltd [1999] WADC 77
Case: [1999] WADC 77
Decision Date: 24 SEPTEMBER 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved a dispute between Knight, the plaintiff, and J Corp Pty Ltd, the defendant. Knight had entered into a contract with J Corp to provide building supervision services. The crux of the dispute was J Corp's decision to terminate Knight's services, which Knight argued was wrongful and resulted in significant financial loss. The court was tasked with determining whether the termination was justified and, if not, the appropriate damages for wrongful termination.

The primary legal issues revolved around the existence of an implied term in the contract that would allow for termination in specific circumstances and the assessment of damages if the termination was deemed wrongful. The court needed to examine the contract terms and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether J Corp was entitled to terminate Knight's services under the contract and, if not, to quantify the damages Knight was entitled to recover.

The court found that there was no implied term in the contract that would have allowed J Corp to terminate Knight's services without substantial justification. Given the absence of a valid termination clause, the termination was considered wrongful. In assessing the damages, the court took into account the remaining term of the contract and the reasonable remuneration Knight would have earned had the contract not been wrongfully terminated. The court awarded Knight damages reflecting the loss of income and other financial losses directly attributable to the wrongful termination.

Orders