Mann v Capital Territory Health Commission - [1981] FCA 180

CATCHWORDS

Contract of

Employment - Action by S t a f f Surgeon

Against Hospi ta l

Whether

Agreement

to P rov ide

Adequate

S u i t a b l e Work

Contrac t Par t ly Wri t ten

and

P a r t l y Oral

Construct ion -

Whether

Term

I m p l i c i t o r

t o be

Implied

- Consequences of Contract S t i l l i n

Force -

S a l a r y S t i l l Being Paid

Damages.

ARNOLD MANN v THE CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH COMMISSION

No. ACT G41 of 1980

Fox, Sheppard and Kelly

Canberra.

2 3 OCT 1981

\.	' :
.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

)

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

)	No. ACT G41 of 1980

REGISTKY	DISTRICT	1
1

DIVISION

GENERAL

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE mSTRALIAN C A m A

L TERRITORY

ARNOLD MANN

Appellant

THE CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH

ION

Respondent

O R D E R

JUDGES MAKING ORDER: Fox and Kelly JJ

Canberra

MADE:

WHERE

DATE OF ORDER:

2 3 OCT 1981

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.	The appeal be dismissed.
2 .	The appellant pay the respondent's costs.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT

OF AUSTRALIA )

AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. ACT G41 of 1980

GENERAL DIVISION

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT

OF THE m R A L I A N CAPITAL T E R m

ARNOLD MANN

Appellant

THE CAPITAL TERRITORY HEALTH

SION

Respondent

Coram:

Fox, Sheppard and Kelly JJ

Canberra.

2 3 OCT 1981

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

FOX and KELLY

JJ:

This is an appeal from the Supreme Court

the Australian Capital Territory (Connor

J). The

appellant i s a salaried senior specialist general surgeon

employed by the respondent. He sued his employer for a

breach of the contract of employment.

The learned trial

judge found that it was an implied term

of the contract

that "the defendant would furnish the plaintiff with

surgical work of a quantity and kind suitable for a senior

and experienced general surgeon". The particular

- 2 -

con t rac tua l t e rm re l i ed

upon

was

one of several a l leged

i n the

s ta tement of c la im, but

i n

t h i s a p p e a l

t h e a p p e l l a n t

has

sought

only

support

that

found

i n h i s f avour

the

1 udge .

His

Honour

then considered

a number

o f f u r t h e r

ques t ions .

expressed

the

inqui ry

fo l lows:

“The

f i r s t ques t ion

is whether

the

work t h e

p l a i n t i f f

i s…

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 Mann v Capital Territory Health Commission

Details

AGLC: Mann v Capital Territory Health Commission [1981] FCA 180
Case: [1981] FCA 180
Decision Date: 23 Oct 1981

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Arnold Mann, a surgeon, appealed against a judgment of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory that dismissed his claim for breach of contract against the Capital Territory Health Commission. Mann claimed that the Commission had breached a contractual term that it would provide him with a sufficient quantity and kind of surgical work suitable for a senior and experienced general surgeon. The Supreme Court had found in favour of the Commission on the basis that the reduction in work available to Mann after a change in policy was not attributable to the Commission. The appeal was dismissed by the Federal Court, with the appellant to pay the respondent's costs. The appeal court found that there was no contractual term that the Commission would provide a sufficient quantity of work to Mann. The contract provided for a fixed salary, and the obligation to provide work would have been too uncertain and subject to external factors to be implied. The court also found that the reduction in work available to Mann after the change in policy was not attributable to the Commission, but rather to other factors such as Mann's involvement in medical politics and his refusal to participate in the activities of the Division of Surgery.

Orders