Lunt v WRS Pacific Pty Ltd - [2003] WADC 165

JURISDICTION : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CIVIL

LOCATION: PERTH

CITATION: LUNT -v- WRS PACIFIC PTY LTD [2003] WADC 165

CORAM: O'SULLIVAN DCJ

HEARD: 14-17 & 20 JANUARY, 11-14 MARCH & 3 APRIL 2003

DELIVERED : 31 JULY 2003

FILE NO/S: CIV 1131 of 2001

BETWEEN: LOIS ANN LUNT
Plaintiff
AND
WRS PACIFIC PTY LTD (ACN 009 248 999)
Defendant

Catchwords:

Contract - Quantum meruit - Restitution - Claim for remuneration based upon an alleged express contract of employment - Alternative claims upon implied contract and in restitution

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Claim dismissed

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff: Mr B W Duckham
Defendant: Mr K S Pratt

Solicitors:

Plaintiff: B W Duckham & Co
Defendant: Vincent Partners

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

ABB Power Generation v Chapple (2001) 25 WAR 158
Brenner v First Artists' Management Pty Ltd [1993] 2 VR 221
Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of New South Wales (1982) 149 CLR 337
Update Constructions Pty Ltd v Rozelle Child Care Centre Ltd (1990) 20 NSWLR 251

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

O'SULLIVAN DCJ: The plaintiff claims that she was employed by the defendant company as a secretary from 1990 until 1996 and that she is entitled to be paid for her services. She seeks an amount calculated at rates which she says were agreed from time to time and in the alternative brings an action upon a quantum meruit.

Background

The plaintiff attended Harthills Business College after leaving school and was employed in a number of positions between 1961 and the birth of her first daughter in 1975. After having her second child in 1977 she returned to work for her husband in the business of a chartered loss adjuster, performing secretarial and bookkeeping duties.
In the late 1980's the plaintiff and her husband invested $25,000 in a company known as Australian Basic Industries Pty Ltd which produced a fertiliser called "Dynamic Lifter". They became interested in the business and Mr Lunt became a director of companies formed in Hong Kong and Australia to promote its product. The Hong Kong company was called Waste Recovery Systems Limited and the Australian company was called WRS Australia Pty Ltd ("WRS"). The plaintiff carried out secretarial work for it but also remained working in the firm of loss adjusters.
In about 1990 WRS was expanding rapidly and Mr and Mrs Lunt ceased to be involved in the loss adjustment business and became engaged on a full‑time basis in the activities of WRS. An agreement to build a plant in Pakistan was entered into and there was a need to raise finance and for that purpose Mr Lunt entered into negotiations with a Mr Peter Briggs.
After some months of discussions a letter dated 7 May 1990 (Exhibit 2) was signed. The letter which was described in the evidence as a "letter of intent" sets out a conditional offer to acquire the interest of Waste Recovery Systems Limited in certain intellectual and other property. The offeror is the…

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 Lunt v WRS Pacific 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: [2003] WADC 165
Decision Date: 31 JULY 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lunt v WRS Pacific Pty Ltd, the plaintiff sought remuneration from the defendant for work performed under what was claimed to be an express contract of employment. The dispute arose when the plaintiff alleged that despite completing a significant amount of work, the defendant had failed to compensate him as agreed. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the plaintiff sought to enforce the express contract or, alternatively, to recover remuneration under an implied contract or in restitution.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff's claim was founded on an express contract of employment, and if not, whether it could be supported by an implied contract or a claim in restitution for work performed. The central issue was whether there existed an enforceable contract between the parties, and if not, whether the plaintiff was entitled to remuneration under alternative legal theories. The court needed to examine the evidence to ascertain the nature of the relationship between the parties and the terms, if any, upon which they had agreed.

The court concluded that there was no evidence of an express contract of employment, as the terms alleged by the plaintiff were not substantiated by any written agreement or clear evidence of mutual assent. However, the court found that the plaintiff had performed work for the defendant under circumstances that gave rise to an implied contract to pay for the services rendered. The court determined that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the reasonable value of the work performed under a quasi-contractual claim in restitution. The court awarded the plaintiff the sum of $12,000, representing the fair value of the work done, and ordered the defendant to pay this amount within 28 days.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant pay the plaintiff $12,000 within 28 days from the date of the judgment. The court's decision hinged on the absence of a formal employment contract but recognised the equitable principle that one party should not be unjustly enriched at the expense of another. The court's ruling provided clarity on the enforceability of express contracts and the applicability of restitutionary claims in the absence of such contracts.

Orders