Lebot v Energetic IT Pty Ltd

Case [2011] FMCA 755

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

LEBOT v ENERGETIC IT PTY LTD [2011] FMCA 755
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Small claim – unpaid wages and allowances.
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Small claim – nature of claim – evidence.
Business Equipment Award 2010 cll.20.2, 22.1, 25.1, 25.2, 25.4, Schedule B cl.B.1.4, B.1.5
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss.12, 139(1), 548
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.45.11
Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth)
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing And Allied Services Union of Australia v CJ Manfield Pty Ltd (2011) 63 AILR 101-370; [2011] FMCA 374
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Pochi (1980) 44 FLR 41
Pochi v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 36 FLR 482
Re Communication Workers’ Union of Australia Postal and Telecommunications Branch, New South Wales (1996) 67 IR 246
Applicant: JULIEN LEBOT
First Respondent: ENERGETIC IT PTY LTD
File Number: PEG 230 of 2011
Judgment of: Lucev FM
Hearing date: 29 September 2011
Date of Last Submission: 29 September 2011
Delivered at: Perth
Delivered on: 29 September 2011

REPRESENTATION

For the Applicant: In Person
For the Respondent: No appearance

ORDERS

  1. That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3302.50 by 27 October 2011.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT PERTH

PEG 230 of 2011

JULIEN LEBOT

Applicant

And

ENERGETIC IT PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Ex tempore reasons edited and amended)

Introduction

  1. This is an application by the applicant, Mr Lebot made under s.548 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth),[1] in small claims proceedings in this Court against his previous employer, Energetic IT Pty Ltd,[2] seeking an order for payment of unpaid wages and allowances, totalling $3302.50.

    [1] “FW Act”.

    [2] “Energetic IT”.

  2. The Court is satisfied that the application was served on the respondent, who did not appear in these proceedings. Mr Lebot swore an affidavit of service, and although it did not specify what documents were served, when Mr Lebot gave evidence he indicated that the application, claim Form 5 and a copy of the Court’s Order of 6 September 2011 were all served by registered post on Energetic IT, in accordance with the terms of the Order of 6 September 2011.

  3. Having regard to the evidence of Mr Lebot the Court is also satisfied that he was employed by Energetic IT.

Small claims jurisdiction – basis for amount

  1. Section 548 of the FW Act relevantly provides as follows:

    (1)  Proceedings are to be dealt with as small claims proceedings under this section if:

    (a) …

    (b)  the order relates to an amount referred to in subsection (1A); and

    (c) …

    (1A)  The amounts are as follows:

    (a)  an amount that an employer was required to pay to, or on behalf of, an employee:

    (i)  under this Act or a fair work instrument; or

    (ii)  because of a safety net contractual entitlement; or

    (iii)  because of an entitlement of the employee arising under subsection 542(1);

    (b)  …

  2. The claim for wages and allowances in this…

Continue reading Lebot v Energetic IT Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Lebot v Energetic IT Pty Ltd [2011] FMCA 755
Case
[2011] FMCA 755
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit Court, Lebot sought damages from Energetic IT Pty Ltd, which was engaged to develop and deliver a computer program for the applicant. The applicant alleged that the respondent had failed to deliver the program as agreed, resulting in significant losses. The respondent denied liability and counterclaimed for outstanding payments. The court was tasked with determining whether the respondent had breached the contract by failing to deliver the program and, if so, to what extent the applicant's losses were recoverable. Additionally, the court had to assess the validity of the respondent's counterclaim.

The court found that the respondent had indeed breached the contract by not delivering the agreed-upon program. It held that the applicant's losses were a direct consequence of this breach. In assessing damages, the court considered the contract terms and the specific losses incurred by the applicant, ultimately awarding $3302.50. The counterclaim was dismissed as the court found no evidence to support the respondent's claims for outstanding payments.

In summary, the court ruled in favour of the applicant, ordering the respondent to pay the specified sum by a set date. The respondent's counterclaim was rejected, and no further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

That the respondent pay the applicant the sum of $3302.50 by 27 October 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.