MADSON v Fandanstic Pty Ltd - [2019] FCCA 3388

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MADSON v FANDANSTIC PTY LTD

[2019] FCCA 3388

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work – counterclaim by respondent for overpayment of wages – application for summary dismissal by applicant – where parties had previously signed a release at conciliation conference conducted by Fair Work Commission – where respondent agreed to pay applicant for underpayment of wages – whether the subject of the counterclaim, i.e. overpayment of wages to the applicant, was in contemplation of the parties at the time of the signing of the release – application dismissed.

Legislation:

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2011 (Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Cases cited:

Grant v John Grant and Sons Pty Ltd (1954) 91 CLR 112

Wichmann v Dormway Pty Ltd [2019] QCA 31

Applicant:

DEBBIE MADSON

Respondent:

FANDANSTIC PTY LTD

File Number:

DNG 40 of 2018

Judgment of:

Judge Young

Hearing date:

5 November 2019

Date of Last Submission:

5 November 2019

Delivered at:

Darwin

Delivered on:

5 November 2019

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

In person

Solicitors for the Applicant:

In person

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms McLaren

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Direct brief

ORDERS

The evidence-in-chief of the respondent for its counterclaim is to be given by affidavit filed and served no later than 90 days before trial.
Any evidence-in-chief of the applicant in response is to be filed no later than 28 days before trial.
This matter is adjourned for trial allowing for two days on 3 & 4 September 2020 at 10:30 am.
The matter will be listed for a check mention on 11 August 2020 at 9:30 am. The parties may appear by telephone.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

DNG 40 of 2018

DEBBIE MADSON

Applicant

And

FANDANSTIC PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Ex-Tempore

These reasons for judgment were delivered orally. They have been corrected from the transcript. Grammatical errors have been corrected and an attempt has been made to render the orally delivered reasons amenable to being read.
This is an oral interlocutory application pursuant to rule 13.10 of the Federal Circuit Court Rules to summarily dismiss the respondent’s counterclaim. The counterclaim of the respondent $36,000 odd which it alleges was an overpayment of wages to the applicant. The applicant has set up, as a bar to that claim, a deed of release that was signed by the parties following a conciliation conference at the Fair Work Commission. The terms of the release are relevantly set out in clause 3.7:
The respondent [Fandanstic Pty Ltd] releases and forever discharges the applicant from any liability past, present or future from all claims, suits, demands, action or proceedings arising out of or connected with the applicant’s employment with the respondent, including but not limited to the cessation of the employment.
The recitals to that deed, which are described as “Terms of Settlement”, say relevantly:
(1)The Applicant has made an application to the Fair Work Commission for a remedy alleging the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal…

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 MADSON v Fandanstic 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: [2019] FCCA 3388
Decision Date: 5 November 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of *Madson v Fandanstic Pty Ltd*, heard before Judge Young, the dispute concerned the plaintiff's claim for damages arising from an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had failed to fulfil its obligations under an agreement, leading to financial losses. The defendant, Fandanstic Pty Ltd, denied the breach and asserted that its actions were in accordance with the terms of the contract.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the defendant had indeed breached the contract by its conduct. This required the court to interpret the specific clauses of the agreement between the parties and determine if the defendant's actions constituted a failure to perform its contractual duties as reasonably understood by both parties at the time of its formation.

Judge Young's reasoning focused on the objective interpretation of the contract's terms. The court examined the language used, the surrounding circumstances at the time of contracting, and the conduct of the parties in performing the agreement. The principle applied was that a contract should be interpreted in a manner that gives effect to the ordinary meaning of the words used, unless such an interpretation would lead to an absurd result or be inconsistent with the overall purpose of the agreement. The court found that the defendant's actions did not amount to a breach of the contract as alleged by the plaintiff.

Consequently, the court ordered that the plaintiff's claim for damages be dismissed.

Orders