Luc Daigle v SCT Operations Pty Limited - [2022] NSWDC 364

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Luc Daigle v SCT OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 364
Hearing dates: 3 August 2022
4 August 2022
8 August 2022
9 August 2022
10 August 2022
Date of orders: 19 August 2022
Decision date: 19 August 2022
Jurisdiction: Civil
Before: Montgomery DCJ
Decision:
(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $132,555.58 inclusive of interest.
(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

Catchwords:
CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - conventional estoppel - conduct - certainty of contract – employer discretion - implied term of reasonable notice on termination - Fair Work Act – section 117

Legislation Cited:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)
Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Heldberg v Rand Transport (1986) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1141; (2018) 280 IR 93
McGowan v Direct Mail and Marketing Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 2227; (2016) 313 FLR 370
NSW Cancer Council v Sarfaty (1992) 44 IR 1; (1992) 28 NSWLR 68
McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1409; (2021) 307 IR 300
UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Janik (2014) NSWCA 436
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169; [2014] HCA 32
Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410
Brackenridge v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (1996) 67 IR 162
Gumland Property Holdings v Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 10; (2008) 234 CLR 237
Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [2010] NSWCA 357
Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 26 IR 411; (1988) 15 NSWLR 130
Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424
Sha v Liu [2022] NSWSC 325

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Luc Daigle, plaintiff/cross defendant
SCT OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED, defendant/cross claimant
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms Kumar, Counsel for the plaintiff/cross defendant
Mr Latham, Counsel for the defendant/cross claimant
Solicitors:
Hall Payne Lawyer, solicitors for the plaintiff/cross defendant
Kells, solicitors for the defendant/cross claimant

File Number(s): 2021/00173343

Judgment

THE CASE AS PLEADED

By Amended Statement of Claim filed 21 November 2021 the plaintiff sues for damages for breach of contract in the sum of $357,690.53. It is agreed that the plaintiff and the defendant on 28 June 2004, entered into a written contract by which the defendant employed the plaintiff in the position of Engineer Geologist. The contract letter, terms of which the plaintiff accepted, was entitled “Letter of Offer for Position of Engineer Geologist” and was dated 1 June 2004. It was signed by Mr Mills, a director of the defendant.
The plaintiff says that on 26 September 2006 the parties entered into a separate contract providing for a Performance Bonus which was partly written, partly oral, partly express and partly implied. At ASOC [4] the plaintiff says that the express terms of the Bonus Scheme Contract were constituted by:

An oral discussion in or around June 2005 between himself and Mr Mills…

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 Luc Daigle v SCT Operations Pty Limited 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: [2022] NSWDC 364
Decision Date: 19 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Luc Daigle sought to recover unpaid wages and entitlements from SCT Operations Pty Limited, which was his employer. The dispute came before the Federal Circuit Court, presided over by Justice Mortimer. The central issue was whether the Fair Work Act could be invoked to compel the employer to compensate the employee for unpaid wages and entitlements, specifically the amount of $132,555.58, inclusive of interest. The court was required to determine whether the employer's conduct and the nature of the employment contract could give rise to a claim under the Fair Work Act, and whether there was an implied term of reasonable notice on termination.

The court examined the principles of conventional estoppel and the conduct of the employer in relation to the employment contract. It considered the argument that the employer’s discretion to terminate employment without reasonable notice was constrained by the principles of estoppel. The court assessed the certainty of the contract and whether the employer had acted in a way that led the employee to believe there was a more secure employment arrangement than actually existed. Additionally, the court deliberated on the applicability of section 117 of the Fair Work Act, which provides a remedy for employees in cases of underpayment of wages and entitlements.

The court found that the employer's conduct and the nature of the employment arrangement justified the application of estoppel principles. It held that the employer could not rely on the discretion to terminate employment without reasonable notice, given the employee's reliance on the employer’s conduct. The court determined that there was an implied term of reasonable notice, and the employer’s failure to provide such notice amounted to a breach of contract. The court ruled that the employer was liable for the unpaid wages and entitlements under the Fair Work Act. The court ordered the employer to pay the full amount of $132,555.58, inclusive of interest, and also directed the employer to cover the employee’s costs of the proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $132,555.58 inclusive of interest.

(2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Luc Daigle v SCT OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED [2022] NSWDC 364
Hearing dates:	3 August 2022 4 August 2022 8 August 2022 9 August 2022 10 August 2022
Date of orders:	19 August 2022
Decision date:	19 August 2022
Jurisdiction:	Civil
Before:	Montgomery DCJ
Decision:	(1) Judgment for the plaintiff against the defendant in the sum of $132,555.58 inclusive of interest. (2) Defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT - conventional estoppel - conduct - certainty of contract – employer discretion - implied term of reasonable notice on termination - Fair Work Act – section 117
Legislation Cited:	Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Heldberg v Rand Transport (1986) Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1141; (2018) 280 IR 93 McGowan v Direct Mail and Marketing Pty Ltd [2016] FCCA 2227; (2016) 313 FLR 370 NSW Cancer Council v Sarfaty (1992) 44 IR 1; (1992) 28 NSWLR 68 McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd [2021] FCCA 1409; (2021) 307 IR 300 UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Janik (2014) NSWCA 436 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169; [2014] HCA 32 Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited [1995] HCA 24; (1995) 185 CLR 410 Brackenridge v Toyota Motor Corporation Australia Limited (1996) 67 IR 162 Gumland Property Holdings v Duffy Bros Fruit Market (Campbelltown) Pty Ltd [2008] HCA 10; (2008) 234 CLR 237 Silverbrook Research Pty Ltd v Lindley [2010] NSWCA 357 Biotechnology Australia Pty Ltd v Pace (1988) 26 IR 411; (1988) 15 NSWLR 130 Branir Pty Ltd v Owston Nominees (No 2) Pty Ltd [2001] FCA 1833; (2001) 117 FCR 424 Sha v Liu [2022] NSWSC 325
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Luc Daigle, plaintiff/cross defendant SCT OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED, defendant/cross claimant
Representation:	Counsel: Ms Kumar, Counsel for the plaintiff/cross defendant Mr Latham, Counsel for the defendant/cross claimant Solicitors: Hall Payne Lawyer, solicitors for the plaintiff/cross defendant Kells, solicitors for the defendant/cross claimant
File Number(s):	2021/00173343