Marie Jean-Francois Murat v Simon Parsons and Company
[1995] IRCA 338
•31 July 1995
C A T C H W O R D S
INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - CONDUCT AND PERFORMANCE - VALID REASON - REINSTATEMENT - COMPENSATION - HARSH UNJUST AND UNREASONABLE - WARNINGS - TERMINATION NOTICE - termination stated to be “due to work practices and disgruntled clients” but held to be based on employee solicitor’s conduct of a specific matter - misconception that judgment had been entered in that matter - applicant’s performance below standard and warranted reprimand but did not warrant termination.
Industrial Relations Act 1988, ss.170DC, 170DE, 170EA, 170EE
CASES:
Siagian v Sanel Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 1
APESMA and Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 106
Grout and Gunnedah Shire Council [1994] IRCR 143
Freeman v Rabinov [1981] VR 539
Nicolson v Heaven and Earth Gallery Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 199 at 210
Cox v South Australian Meat Corporation (unreported) I.R.C.A. 13 June 1995
MARIE JEAN-FRANCOIS MURAT v SIMON PARSONS AND COMPANY
No. VI-1843/94
Before: Ryan JR
Place: Melbourne
Date: 31 July 1995
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Matter No VI-1843/94
B E T W E E N: MARIE JEAN-FRANCOIS MURAT
Applicant
AND: SIMON PARSONS AND COMPANY
Respondent
RYAN JR
MINUTES OF ORDER
31 JULY 1995
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
Declaration that the termination of employment of Francois Murat by Simon Parsons and Company on 26 September 1994 contravened Sections 170DC and 170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
Within 21 days the respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $13,080.
NOTE: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.
IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Matter No VI-1843/94
B E T W E E N: MARIE JEAN-FRANCOIS MURAT
Applicant
AND: SIMON PARSONS AND COMPANY
Respondent
COURT: RYAN JR
PLACE: MELBOURNE
DATE: 31 JULY 1995
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
APPLICATION FOR REMEDY FOR UNLAWFUL TERMINATION
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY
The applicant graduated in law in 1987 and worked as an articled clerk that year. He was employed as a solicitor from May 1988 to 26 September 1994. In October 1992 he was retrenched from a suburban legal firm for what were described by the principal as “purely economic reasons”. Indeed, the principal gave very supportive evidence as to the industry and competence of the applicant.
From January to June 1993 the applicant undertook a course in Taxation Law. He began work with the respondent as a locum in July 1993 and occupied a permanent position as a solicitor in the respondent’s Morwell office from September 1993 until the termination of his employment on 26 September 1994.
TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT
At approximately 5:30 pm on 26 September 1994 the applicant was called into the office of Mr Gary Singer, then a senior solicitor and now a partner in the respondent firm. Mr Singer and the Office Manager, Ms Janice Lynn were present. The applicant states that Mr Singer said him:
“Francois we’ll have to let you go”.
Mr Singer then handed the applicant a letter. In his written statement and in evidence in chief the applicant claimed that:
(1) that he was shocked
(2) the dismissal was presented as a fait accompli
(3) he had no opportunity to defend himself
(4)he was required to pack up his personal belongings and leave immediately and was driven back to his residential unit by Ms Lynn
(5) he was not given any opportunity to say goodbye to anyone else in the office.
The letter of termination is part of Exhibit A1 and reads as follows:
“Simon Parsons and Co
Our Ref: GS:JL
Mr Francois Murat
2/8 Watmore Avenue
Morwell 3840
26 September 1994
Dear Francois
Due to inadequate work practices and disgruntled clients, we hereby terminate your employment as of today.
We enclose herewith, our cheque in the sum of $2,627.99 which is made up as follows:-
4 days wages $451.12
16 days holiday pay $1,611.39
2 weeks pay in lieu of termination $991.48
======
$3,053.99
Less Petrol 11/8/94 - 11/9/94 206.00
American Express
(allowance $280.00 per month)
“ 2 weeks rent - 2/8 Watmore Avenue
payable to 8/10/94 220.00
======
$2,627.99
======
We require the office key, Telstar car key and American Express card to be left with Jan.
Yours faithfully,
SIMON PARSONS & CO.”
During the course of the hearing Ms Lynn and Mr Singer confirmed that the former was the author of the letter of termination under the direction of the latter and that the latter signed the letter on behalf of the respondent firm.
Mr Singer gave evidence that on 21 September 1994 he had formed the view that the applicant had misled him in relation to an action in the Magistrates Court known as Tildens Holdings Pty Ltd v Long. The respondent firm acted for Anthony William Long and in many respects for Mrs Long, the defendant’s wife.
The following extract from pages 23 to 25 of the transcript of the proceedings on 8 May describe the situation as given in evidence by Mr Singer in response to questions from the respondent’s counsel, Mr McDonald.
“Mr McDonald: Can you indicate when did you form a view that Mr Murat’s employment should be terminated?
Mr Singer:Well I formed a view on the day that I’d uncovered that he had misled me in relation to Long which was 21 September. I thought that he should go then.
Mr McDonald: Now can you account for the delay?
Mr Singer:I hadn’t had a chance to speak to Simon (i.e. Simon Parsons) because I think it is a Wednesday the 21st and Simon was out on the Thursday, Friday, and the first opportunity I had to speak to Simon about it was a Monday and I wanted to make sure that he was in agreement with me. Because I mean the problem is getting solicitors to the country, it’s very difficult and I don’t like sacking people unless it’s absolutely necessary, and that is why I procrastinated and I - you know, I just wanted to verify it, it was Simon’s partnership, I just wanted his imprimatur on it too.
McDonald:When did you become a partner?
Mr Singer:January (1995) this year officially.
Mr McDonald: Why did you not consider this was a matter which warranted a further warning?
Mr Singer:Because he had misled me, he hadn’t let me know about a mistake; if I don’t know about a mistake I can’t deal with it and I just had lost trust in the man.
Mr McDonald: The letter of 26 September, who actually wrote the letter do you know?
Mr Singer:Jan, basically typed it up. Janice Lynne, the Office Manager.
Mr McDonald: Was there any discussion between her and you prior to that?
Mr Singer:I would have just told her to make up his pay and what he was going to get - he was going to lose his job and would she just write him a note telling him, you know, that his job was finished.
Mr McDonald: Yes?
Mr Singer:And...just leave it general.
Mr McDonald: Leave what general?
Mr Singer:Just the reason...we weren’t happy with his work and there had been so many complaints from clients.
Mr McDonald: Are you able to say why is it that there is no specific reference in the letter to the Long incident?
Mr Singer:Well, Mrs Long was covered - Mr Long was covered by inadequate work practices and disgruntled clients. And it was - I just thought, well, I will just leave it general because there was so many things that I was unhappy with and that was really the straw which broke the camel’s back.
Mr McDonald: Yes?
Mr Singer:That just meant he had to go immediately.
Mr McDonald: What is your recollection of the circumstances in which this letter was actually given to Mr Murat?
Mr Singer:Janice Lynn and myself were sitting in my office. I called Francois in and asked him to come in, close the door. I said to him:
Francois, I am terribly sorry we are going to have to let you go. I cannot deal with solicitors who conceal mistakes, and it is distressing for me but I am just going to have to let you go.
Mr McDonald: Yes did he say anything in response?
Mr Singer:He said nothing, absolutely nothing.”
EVENTS LEADING UP TO TERMINATION
There is no evidence that the principal of the respondent firm, Mr Simon Parsons, and the applicant’s supervisor, Mr Gary Singer, were dissatisfied with the performance or conduct of the applicant until July 1994.
MARCH 1994 - DISAGREEMENT AS TO ALLEGED PROBATION OF HELGA SVENDSEN
However, the applicant believes that the seeds of dissatisfaction were sown in March 1994 and he describes the circumstances in paragraph 8 of his witness statement of 8 March 1995:
“I believe that I may have fallen out of favour with Simon Parsons in or about March 1994. Helga Svendsen who was articled to Simon Parsons had received a letter reprimanding her for a variety of broad reasons including her association with other members of the local legal profession. She had earlier been reprimanded for having attended a Christmas party at the offices of Slater & Gordon. In our capacity as shop stewards of the Australian Services Union Dita Georgiadis and I met with Simon Parsons, Gary Singer and Helga Svendsen to discuss her letter. Helga denied that Simon had ever told her that she had been put on probation. Simon Parsons claimed that he had told her. I said that if I had to choose who to believe, that I would believe Helga. A few days later Gary Singer told me that what I had said was tantamount to calling Simon a ‘liar’, and recommended that I apologise to him. I did so apologise because I felt that my employment may have been placed in jeopardy had I not.”
In general terms, if not in detail, Parsons, Singer, Svendsen and Georgiadis confirm in their evidence at the hearing that the applicant had indeed expressed a preference for the word of Svendsen over that of Parsons. Counsel for the respondent pointed out that if the incident disposed the two senior lawyers to adopt a critical attitude towards the applicant there was no manifestation of such an attitude until July 1994. The Court simply notes that there is no evidence that this incident motivated Parsons and/or Singer in subsequent events.
13 JULY 1994 - SOKOR’S CASE
Singer gave evidence (transcript page 8 - 8 May 1995) of a conversation with the applicant on 13 July 1994 after Singer had returned from the Sale office. The conversation related to complaints against the applicant made that day by a client, Sokor. The applicant concedes that Singer discussed Sokor’s complaints with him on 13 July. He also concedes that Singer advised him of Sokor’s view that he (the applicant) had been rude and had failed to take action on a number of matters in respect of the Sokor file.
Singer had made a note of his conversation with Sokor earlier that day in Sale and he claims that he discussed the matters in the note with the applicant and that when the file was referred to the applicant on 13 July for further action and for a letter of apology to be prepared to Sokor the file note was wrapped around the file. The applicant concedes that such a note was on the file but he does not concede and cannot recall whether he had access to the written note when preparing the letter to the client.
The applicant in his sworn evidence (Transcript page 53 - 8 March 1995) seems to downgrade and make light of the complaint and indeed Singer’s alleged attitude to the complaint. Singer, on the other hand, states that he took the complaint very seriously and directed the applicant to apologise in writing and attend to certain matters relating to the client and the file and that the applicant’s response was tardy and unsatisfactory.
The applicant claims that he was only asked to write and apologise as “a PR exercise”. The applicant also claims that the client, as a purchaser, contributed to delay in resolving the purchase of a fast food business by failing to provide the balance of settlement monies due to the vendor.
It is difficult for the Court, even with the most thorough investigation of the incomplete evidence of competing employer and employee claims, to assess what is claimed by the respondent in a letter of 28 July 1994 to be the applicant’s “unsatisfactory work performance and behaviour”. The respondent seeks to rely on 16 matters, each of which is the subject of a client file and 14 of these matters are listed in an attachment to the letter of 28 July.
Certain attention is given to the Sokor file because the conversation between Singer and the applicant on 13 July 1994 seems to be the first significant expression of dissatisfaction by a senior member of the respondent firm.
The Court discounts Singer’s evidence of earlier concerns, such as comments as to certain aspects of the applicant’s dress (e.g. underpants appearing above the waist line of trousers) and notes that generally in respect of the period from July 1993 to July 1994 Singer responded to a question as to satisfaction with work performance (Transcript page 3 - 8 May 1995) as follows:
“Yeah - basically satisfied with, you know, the majority of his work performance. I had occasion to speak to him a number of times about various things but, I mean, basically, you know, he was doing a good job and we were happy with him....and...yes....he did receive, I think, maybe one or two (salary increases) during that period of time (i.e. August 1993 to May 1994).”
In respect of the Sokor matter the Court concludes that the applicant has downplayed and minimised the degree of concern expressed by Singer and that Singer has exaggerated any defects in the applicant’s handling of the matter and may have given no weight to the client’s failure to provide timely payment of settlement monies.
19 JULY 1994 - DISCUSSION WITH SIMON PARSONS
- THE RICHARDSON CASE
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the applicant’s witness statement (Exhibit A1) are reproduced below and summarise his position in respect of what he describes as the first incident in which Simon Parsons, the principal of the respondent firm, expressed dissatisfaction with performance. This incident follows six days after Singer’s discussion with the applicant and Singer’s expression of dissatisfaction in the Sokor matter:
“ The very first time that Simon Parsons had appeared unhappy with anything I did at work was in July 1994. At the time I was working mostly on commercial files, but from time to time assisted in common law personal injuries matters. Mr Parsons’ Secretary, Carla, had asked me to assist with some answers to interrogatories. I asked her to bring me a file so that I could perform the work. At approximately 8.00 p.m. that night I saw the reminder note that I had left myself and realised that she had not brought me the file. I couldn’t do the answers the next day because I had a pre trial conference in the morning. I wrote a short note to Carla dated 18th July 1994 in which I stated:-
‘As you have failed to provide me with the file as I requested, I am now unable to draw these answers. I can only assist if I get assistance. I should not have to chase up files. I cannot se any reason why I should assist you any longer.’
The next morning which was the 19th July, Simon told me that he was disappointed with the note and that Carla was upset. He said that he was upset and that I had “lost a lot of points with him”. He did not appear terribly upset, and certainly there was no discussion of disgruntled clients or inadequate work practices. I explained to him why I had written a note in that tone and told him it was 8.00 p.m. at night and that I had been under a lot of stress. I complained to him in detail of excessive workloads. He appeared to understand that it was not my file and that I was simply helping out and I certainly did not construe this discussion as a warning.”
Parsons, in his evidence, (Transcript page 393 - 10 May 1995) gave the following as his recollection of the discussion with the applicant on 19 July:
“The circumstances before I had canvassed it with him was that one of my secretaries had been reduced to tears and had had to go home. I wrote:
Francois, please discuss immediately,
or FM, please discuss immediately
on the note which was around the file when Francois attended the office. I told him it was absolutely pointless being rude or impolite to the secretaries. It wasn’t the sort of thing that should be done and that I didn’t want to see that sort of thing happening.”
21 JULY 1994 - WAALEBOER’S CASE
On or about 21 July 1994, a client, Mrs Elma Waaleboer wrote to the respondent in the following terms:
“Dear Simon Parsons
I have become very displeased and upset with Francois’s performance to date in handling my complaints for the following reasons:
In February I told Francois I wanted to proceed with court action. In March I paid $500 with the understanding that this sum was required to start the action. At present I have heard nothing as to when these proceedings will take place or if proceedings have been implemented, even after many STD phone calls.
I was given your companies name from the Legal Advisory Offices in Melbourne and unless you give better value for your fees, that you will charge me, by keeping me better informed I will be compelled to inform the above offices of your handling of my case.
Yours sincerely
Elma Waaleboer”
The letter bears a date stamp 22 July 1994 but some person (possibly the applicant) has written underneath the date stamp, “it’s only 21.7.94”.
In the top right hand corner of the letter the applicant has written in his own handwriting the following:
“If I had a reasonable workload a number of files limited to a reasonable amount then and only then could I be efficient and satisfy everybody. Elma Waaleboer is a lovely lady but I can’t help her at the moment - SM 21.7.94”
22 JULY 1994 - DISCUSSION WITH GARY SINGER
In his witness statement, at paragraph 13, the applicant deals with this discussion very briefly as follows:
“The following Friday being 22 July 1994, Gary and I had a friendly conversation in which he mentioned to me - you are obviously stressed by workload you should consider taking some holidays.”
During cross-examination it was put to the applicant that during the discussion on 22 July he had advised Singer that he had too many files and that he believed that the number of files needed to be reduced and that he could cope with up to 250 files.
The applicant does not recall a conversation along these lines. His responses on 8 March 1995 (Transcript page 38) were as follows:
“I don’t recall it but I may have said it.”
“I don’t recall having told him (Singer) that but at the same time I won’t be denying it either.”
In his evidence on 8 May 1995 (Transcript pages 12 and 13) Singer claims that he spoke to the applicant on 22 July:
“Because his work attitude has dropped; his demeanour had been poor towards clients, towards fellow staff. He wasn’t progressing work, you know, work just wasn’t happening. His work performance was unsatisfactory. ....I spoke to him about three matters on that day.”
The matters which Singer states he discussed with the applicant were Sokor, Helmers and Longmore. However, while these matters were put to the applicant when he gave evidence on 8 and 9 March 1995, it was not put that Singer discussed them with the applicant and the Court has given no weight at all to Singer’s evidence of the discussion on 22 July other than to accept there was a discussion on workload. This is not to say that the Court has concluded that there was no discussion on attitude, demeanour and performance and on the three specific matters.
LETTER OF WARNING DATED 28 JULY 1994
On 29 July Singer handed to the applicant a letter which read as follows:
“Mr. Francois Murat
28 July 1994
Dear Francois,
Both Simon and I have had occasion to speak to you during the last 10 days, about your unsatisfactory work performance and behaviour. You appear to be doing little to remedy the situation and it is causing both of us grave concern, so we are putting it in writing.
Firstly, your attitude has been abrupt, insulting and unco-operative to us and to the other staff. Examples of memos attached.
Secondly, you have not been answering telephone calls and being rude to clients. There have been a number of complaints.
Thirdly, you have not been following through on your work, diarising it or prioritising it. You are handling some sensitive and difficult cases, but are not doing the work required.
I have enclosed a list of matters where you have not followed through, or prepared them properly in insufficient time. All your errors have cost us money in terms of payments, adjournments, loss of cases and in terms of the three involving the firm, your failure to prepare in two has meant that they have ended in us settling on terms we would not otherwise have had to.
You have complained about your workload and that you cannot cope with more than 250 files. A recent manual survey of your files is attached, you will see you have 248 files, the majority in your room. Since the census I have decreased your workload by the Probate, TAC and family files, and I have finalised a number of the miscellaneous.
Your indifference to the work, the staff and the clients is most concerning and alarming.
We further note that you have been arriving at work every day late, which has inconvenienced other Solicitors who need to use the car to go to Sale. You have also been missing or turning up late to the Solicitors meetings.
We would suggest that you lift your performance markedly, otherwise you will reluctantly leave us no alternative but to terminate your employment with our firm.
Should you wish to discuss this further, please arrange with either or both of us to do so at a convenient time.
Simon and Gary.”
This letter was signed by both Simon Parsons and Gary Singer and there were five attachments, namely:
a list of 14 matters referred to in the fifth paragraph of the letter -
Sokor, Connor, Louise Barret, Helmers, Yatara, Ingram, Roby, Delai, Lehman, Kearney, Perry, Richardson, Waaleboer and Mohr
Elma Waaleboer’s complaint endorsed with the applicant’s handwritten minute of 21 July 1994
the applicant’s handwritten minute of 18 July in respect of the Richardson matter. (This is the minute which upset the secretary, Carla, and led to the discussion with Singer on 19 July).
an unsigned and undated note from Parsons referring to “two offensive memos” from the applicant. This handwritten note is clearly a reference to the applicant’s minutes of 18 July (Richardson) and 21 July (Waaleboer)
the file survey referred to in paragraph 6 of the letter of 28 July.
The fifth attachment records 248 files apparently under the control of the applicant on 25 July 1994.
The fourth attachment containing comments on the applicant’s handwritten minutes of 18 July (Richardson) and 21 July (Waaleboer) reads as follows:
“Your two offensive memo’s are annexed:
a)if you displayed a modicum of professional courtesy perchance the support staff would be more inclined to assist
b)if you voiced your concerns through Gary, Jan or I, rather than waiting on such acerbic comments to surface some prophylactic steps could be instigated
c)most professionals confronted by an excessive workload prioritise and seek assistance or delegate the non urgent work.”
The applicant claims that he never saw a copy of this note from Parsons until it was provided to him as the fourth attachment to the letter of 28 July.
DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND GARY SINGER FRIDAY 29 JULY 1994
In paragraphs 14 to 18 of his witness statement (Exhibit A1) the applicant describes the discussion of 29 July and the events leading up to it and occurring after it in the following terms:
“The next thing that happened was that I received a letter dated 28th July 1994, which outlined a number of different issues. This included the letter of complaint forwarded by Ms. Waaleboer. I was shocked when I received this letter as none of the conversations that I had in that preceding week or two seemed consistent with the tenor of the letter.
The letter was hand delivered to me by Gary Singer in my office. I received it on a Friday night when I was about to head back to Melbourne. I went straight to see Simon Parsons in order to discuss the letter. It was 5.30 p.m. and Simon had been drinking. He didn’t talk to me.
I saw Gary Singer in his office and burst out crying as I was so distressed about the contents of the letter. He laughed at me quite loudly and told me not to cry. We discussed the letter, particularly the list of matters about which the letter said I had not adequately followed through or prepared properly. I attempted to explain that of all the matters listed, there was only one on which I had made a mistake and this was the “Yatara” matter. On this file I had mistakenly briefed Counsel to appear at a pre-hearing conference when in fact the matter had been listed for hearing. Gary would not explain to me what I had allegedly done wrong on the files. He simply kept coming back to general issues, making comments like, “You have to prioritise things better, don’t take time considering legal issues; leave that to Counsel and don’t do detailed work on a file; don’t spend so much time on it”.
When I was two-thirds of my way through the list of matters, Simon Parsons buzzed Gary and told him that someone was waiting for Gary to take him back to Melbourne. Gary told me to ignore the letter and to have a good weekend and that he was glad we had the discussions.
The following Monday morning, Simon Parsons and Gary Singer were smiling and asked me about the weekend. No further discussions about the letter took place and I received no further criticisms for the next two months.”
In paragraph 19 of his witness statement (Exhibit A1) the applicant:
concedes that Parsons spoke to him about his note of 18 July to Carla in respect of the Richardson matter
denies that he was counselled on that occasion about his work performance or behaviour
indicates that he was unaware of any deficiency in his performance and that conversely as he had complained about his workload he had anticipated that the firm would take some form of action to assist him with the difficulties he was experiencing
denies that he was ever insulting or unco-operative to any other member of staff
admits that he was abrupt to Carla but claims that his response was required in circumstances in which Carla had failed to bring a file to him
describes the alleged failure to return phone calls as “a general complaint by Gary Singer and Simon Parsons that solicitors failed to return phone calls”
expresses the view that he was more efficient in returning telephone calls than most other solicitors and that he had a policy of attempting to return phone calls within 24 hours
denies that he was rude to clients but concedes that there were two occasions where he may have been accused of rudeness, one involving Mrs Long and the other Mr Sokor
denies that he ever failed to follow through on his work or diarise it or prioritise it or that he failed to do necessary work on sensitive or difficult cases
10.alleges that he experienced difficulties because Simon Parsons and Gary Singer prioritised their personal litigation and litigation on behalf of the firm ahead of other matters which, in the applicant’s view, may have been more pressing.
13 SEPTEMBER 1994
The applicant gave evidence that on this day he attended a solicitors meeting at which Simon Parsons said:
“The only solicitor who has ever been sacked was a person who hid a file under the bed.”
The only relevance of this reported statement is that, if it occurred, it could be said to be indicative of the attitude Mr Parsons took to any concealment of matters which he believed should be brought to the attention of senior solicitors in the firm. In his own evidence, Parsons conceded that he had at times in effect indicated to staff that the concealment of mistakes was a cardinal sin.
14 SEPTEMBER 1994 - SMITH’S CASE
In paragraph 21 of Exhibit A1 the applicant gave evidence as follows:
“The next comment that was made to me about the performance of my work occurred on 14 September 1994. On that day, there had been a hearing over a Retail Tenancy dispute at Moe Court for a client named Trevor Smith. This was a fairly minor matter and I had briefed Bruce Miller of Counsel to appear. I arranged for Mr Miller to confer with our client on the day of our hearing in our office. I asked Mr Miller whether he needed me at the conference and he stated that I was not required.
On the 14 September 1994 I arrived at work at the usual time of 9:15 am. This was a Wednesday, which meant that I had travelled in from Melbourne after spending the Tuesday night there. Jan Lynn simply came into my office and stated Simon Parsons would have liked me to attend the conference that morning. I explained to her that Mr Miller didn’t require me.
15 SEPTEMBER 1994 - THE KEENAN QUERY
The applicant gave evidence that he was ill and unable to attend work and reported in sick. He states in paragraph 22 of his witness statement (Exhibit A1):
“I later found that on that day, a client called Mrs Keenan rang up with a query.”
16 SEPTEMBER 1994 - DELIVERY OF AN UNSIGNED MEMO EXPRESSING CONCERN RE SMITH, RE KEENAN AND GENERAL MATTERS INCLUDING FILE REVIEW COSTING AND PUNCTUALITY
The applicant’s evidence is as follows (paragraph 23, Exhibit A1):
“The next day, Friday 16 September 1994, Gary Singer who had taken the phone call from Mrs Keenan called me on the telephone to talk about a few files. I asked him whether there had been any problems with Mrs Keenan and he said that everything was under control and that there were no problems.
I was absolutely shocked when that afternoon I, along with Dita Georgiardis and Roger Misso, received a letter from Simon Parsons and Gary Singer. My letter alleged that I had failed to attend Trevor Smith’s conference and had failed to return Mrs Keenan’s phone call. There was also a general statement in each of our letters about billing. I do not have a copy of this letter.”
The letter was in fact an unsigned memo dated 15 September 1994. It was tendered as Exhibit R2 and it reads as follows:
“15 September 1994
Francois, - herewith a copy of the notation on your file.
Re: Trevor Smith - Matter No. 935732
You had arranged for Bruce Miller, Barrister to have a meeting with Trevor at 8.30 am on Wednesday morning at our office. You advised the clients the day before. You advised Allison you would be in the office at 9.00 am. You did not arrive at the office until 9.30 am (approximately). Even though you were not required in the meeting, you should have been available, you told staff and the Barrister you would be in at 9.00 am.
Jan asked you about the Barristers fee. You said “Trevor was going to pay Bruce direct”. Barristers are not permitted to receive money from clients. Trevor did not have the money.
Trevor came into the office on Thursday 15 September as he was at a loss as to what to do.
Trevor was happy with the result of the claim but complained there was a lack of communication leading up to the hearing.
Re: Wilma Keenan
Wilma had contacted the office approximately 5 times, over a reasonable time period nothing has been done, Gary needed to look into the matter.
Wilma is a significant client referror.
You are failing to review files or plan ahead for crises. As a result claims are being prepared at the last minute - inefficiently and with errors - costly errors.
These errors are for the most part so late in the day as to be incapable of overcoming without at least cost orders against us or our clients - the Barristers are inadequately dealing with matters because they are rushed and other staff have to rush around to cover.
Your general costing is in arrears, and your general allocation of time to matters and prioritisation needs a lot of attention.
These problems are not to re-occur.
Your general costing needs a lot of attention.”
In cross-examination (Transcript page 70 - 8 March 1995) the applicant indicated that Exhibit R2 was handed to him in an envelope by the Office Manager, Jan Lynne, when the applicant was in the library at about 5:00 pm on the afternoon of Friday 16 September 1994.
The applicant indicated that he assumed that the author was Simon Parsons because in respect of Wilma Keenan the following comment appears:
“Gary needed to look into the matter.”
Of course in his witness statement (paragraph 23, Exhibit A1) the applicant seems to assume his unsigned memo (Exhibit R2) and similar memos to his colleagues (Georgiardis and Misso) were from “Simon Parsons and Gary Singer”.
The applicant also gave the following evidence about Exhibit R2 (Transcript page 71 - 8 March 1995):
“When I received that, I thought, I mean, it took me by surprise. Again, I thought, what another one of those, couple of months later. And I remember going to my office and I went past it to Georgiardis’s office and she called me in and said, ‘Francois, I’ve got something to tell you’. And then she showed me a letter that she received on the same day. ....Another solicitor who received another note of similar - I mean a note of complaint about certain things that she had done wrong. .....basically, when I received this note, I found out the same day that Dita Georgiardis received a note herself, and I found out the next day that Roger received a note himself. And I thought, this is ridiculous, Simon has gone crazy. He’d obviously had a bad week. I mean this is to be expected but I didn’t have any discussion with anyone about it.”
Again, in cross-examination, the applicant indicated that:
he did not agree with the contents of the memorandum
he did not consider that the memorandum called his tenure into question because there was no reference to tenure in the memorandum
he took the memorandum to mean that he “should not repeat whatever mistake that I was supposed to have made”
he took the memorandum to mean that if he did repeat such mistakes he would be reprimanded and he concluded:
“I didn’t think ahead of that. I mean I didn’t think any further than that.”
At this stage the following exchange took place between Counsel for the respondent and the applicant (Transcript page 72 - 8 March 1995):
“Mr McDonald: So at this stage, you put a red line through the letter of 28 July which was telling you that if you did not improve your performance, you will be dismissed? You had cast that from your mind completely?
Applicant:Yes”
The Court noted that the applicant treated the unsigned but strongly worded memo of 15 September very nonchalantly.
20 SEPTEMBER 1994
Counsel for the respondent asked the applicant whether he could recall a meeting with Gary Singer on 20 September, a meeting specifically initiated by Singer to discuss his concerns regarding three files, Helmer, Sokor and Longmore. The applicant indicated that he could not recall a specific meeting to discuss these three matters but he generally recalled discussions with Singer on each of the matters.
In respect of Helmer he agreed that Singer had asked him to write to the barrister in question immediately after the applicant had returned from the taxation at which the amount which was taxed came in under the offer of compromise. The applicant agreed that Singer had put to him that it had taken the applicant some time to write the letter requested, that he drafted it and put it in the mail basket for Mr Singer and that he received the letter back with what he described as “quite rude annotations” and that Singer clearly was not happy with the way the letter had been drafted.
The applicant also recalled a conversation with Singer in which the latter expressed dissatisfaction about the time taken to write a letter to Mr Sokor and that, when written, the letter did not actually address the specific complaints which Mr Sokor had made.
In respect of the Longmore, Counsel for the respondent put it to the applicant that this was an insurance claim arising out of a fire and that soon after the applicant had commenced with the respondent he had been asked to have the matter transferred to the miscellaneous causes list in the County Court in Melbourne and that at the meeting on 20 September Singer had criticised the applicant for a delay of some 12 months in achieving a transfer to the miscellaneous causes list in Melbourne. The applicant responded that he “did not really remember” (or agree) with the propositions as put.
His response at page 83 of the transcript on 9 March 1995 was as follows:
“I do remember that at that stage we had already had an application before the Court for a transfer of the proceeding to Melbourne which had been acceded to. With the Longmore matter, there were numerous different aspects of the case which were a lot more pressing than the whole idea of changing the venue to Melbourne. The more pressing matters, for instance, at the time when I first commenced employment was the matter of discovery of documents and I pretty diligently pursued further discovery of documents and, in fact, we eventually obtained an order of the Court for further discovery, because the insurance company had not disclosed all of the investigators reports. They claimed legal professional privilege and we successfully claimed that there was no legal professional privilege attached to that but it was just one of the many issues that were a lot more pressing than the whole idea of changing the venue from Morwell to Melbourne. I eventually did that after discussing the matter with the client. I mean in the end it’s the client who gives the instructions. I don’t deny having been asked to do it (transfer the matter to Melbourne) but the way you put it, it sounds as if I didn’t do much work at all in that matter and that I was totally incompetent. I mean I wasn’t.”
Singer’s evidence of the discussion on 20 September is in the transcript at pages 19 and 20 on 8 May 1995 as follows:
“I had a discussion with him about his performance and I wasn’t at all happy about it. He still wasn’t addressing some of the issues we had previously discussed that I was concerned about. I think I discussed again the files of Helmers, Longmore and Sokor. I didn’t believe that he was following through on the things I had disciplined him about. I mean whilst there had been a tiny bit of improvement, there was not marked improvement of the things that I had spoken to him ad nauseum about.”
21 SEPTEMBER 1994 - THE LONG MATTER
The following is a summarised extract from pages 20 and 21, transcript 8 May 1995:
“Mr McDonald: Now, the next day, 21 September, do you recall having a discussion with Mr Murat regarding a matter of Long and Tildens Holdings?
Singer:Yes I do remember quite distinctly. Jan came into my office and it was brought to my attention that Mrs Long was in the office and she was hysterical and would not leave the office until she was seen by me. ...I then went to Francois room to have a discussion with him because he’d come out having been with Mr and Mrs Long as I understand it for a period of time. ....I asked Francois what the matter was and he said they were upset because the bailiff had been around to their place in relation to some cost orders and they were upset about the costs. He didn’t elaborate much more on it. I then went to Conference Room 3. I took the file at that stage, had a discussion with Mr and Mrs Long....then pacified them, got them out of the office and then went back to my office to read the file. And then called Francois in after I had read the file. I buzzed Francois on the intercom, you know the inter-office phone thing and I had him come to my office. I told him that I was very angry, I said Francois, you haven’t told me that you’ve concealed a mistake in this matter, you’ve gone on as though this matter was still alive and it’s dead because the judgment has been entered against our clients. I said I am very distressed because it’s very hard - I mean I can deal with - I told him I can deal with mistakes that I know about, I cannot deal with mistakes that I don’t know about. And I said, I just don’t know what to do about you. I said ...Mrs Long is not the easiest client in the world and she’s got every reason in the world to be angry with you. She’s got every right to be angry and I said to him, I said look, if that was your own file would you be happy with the way it was handled, I mean if you were the client would you be, and he said, no. He agreed with me that he wouldn’t like that to be his file that was being handled by the office that that was what had occurred. And he agreed that she had every right to be annoyed.”
It is quite clear from Singer’s evidence (pages 23 to 25 transcript 8 May - already reproduced on pages 3 and 4 of this judgment) that it was on the basis of a perception that the applicant had misled him in the Long matter that Singer concluded on 21 September that the applicant “should go”.
At the time, Singer was not a partner in the firm but it is clear that he was the senior solicitor to whom the applicant was responsible. Singer wanted the approval or confirmation of Parsons, the principal of Simon Parsons and Company. He got that confirmation on 26 September for a decision he (Singer) had clearly taken on 23 September. Indeed, it was Singer who handed the termination letter to Francois Murat. It was Singer, who on his own evidence, said:
“I cannot deal with solicitors who conceal mistakes and it is distressing for me but I am just going to have to let you go.”
It is Singer who said:
“Francois, you haven’t told me that you’ve concealed a mistake in this matter, you’ve gone on as though this matter was still alive and it’s dead because the judgment has been entered against our clients.”
It is Singer who directed the preparation of the termination letter. His initials “G.S.” and those of the office manager appear on the letter. Singer signed the letter. Indeed the cheque for $2,627.99 and which accompanied the letter appears to have been prepared at Singer’s direction on Friday 23 September. The cheque is dated 23 September 1994 and is signed by Singer. The termination letter describes the cheque as being “our cheque” for “four days wages, sixteen days holiday pay and two weeks pay in lieu of termination”. There is a setoff and deductions made in respect of petrol and rent.
While the letter states that termination is “due to inadequate work practices and disgruntled clients”, it seems clear on the basis of Singer’s own evidence that he terminated the applicant’s employment with the approval of Simon Parsons for one reason and one reason only. The reason for termination, the ground for termination, was Singer’s perception that the applicant had misled him and misled the principal, Simon Parsons, in respect of the matter of Long v Tildens Holdings. Singer gave evidence that he believed and indeed told the applicant that the applicant had concealed a mistake and had gone on as if the matter was alive while, in Singer’s view, judgment had been entered against “our clients” (Mr and Mrs Long).
Singer described the applicant’s concealment of the mistake in the conduct of the Long matter as “the final straw”. He sought to justify the termination on the basis of inadequate performance by the applicant, which performance was claimed was brought to the applicant’s attention on numerous occasions in person and in writing and specifically on 13, 19, 22 and 29 July and 16, 20 and 21 September 1994.
Singer’s evidence also seems to be to the effect that the words, “inadequate work practices and disgruntled clients” in the termination letter were intended as a reference to the unsatisfactory performance and conduct of the applicant which, it is alleged, was directly and in writing brought to the applicant’s attention on the dates mentioned above and on many other occasions.
FINDINGS
Firstly, I find that the termination was an act of the employer. The moving spirit behind the termination was Gary Singer. He made the decision on behalf of the employer. It was his initiative. Through him and also by way of endorsement by Simon Parsons, it was a termination at the initiative of the employer. It was an initiative of the employer in the sense that those words are used in Siagian v Sanel Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 1, APESMA and Skilled Engineering Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 106, and Grout and Gunnedah Shire Council [1994] IRCR 143.
Secondly, I find that there was one ground and one ground only for the termination and that was Singer’s view, endorsed by Parsons, that the applicant had misled both of them and concealed his inadequate handling of the Long file and had concealed what Singer thought was a case where judgment had been entered against their clients, Mr and Mrs Long.
In the circumstances, I do not find it necessary to go into detail in respect of all sixteen of the named matters most of which, it is alleged, were brought to the applicant’s attention in July 1994 and which were claimed to be examples of “inadequate practices and disgruntled clients”. However, both Counsel examined and cross-examined in great detail on these matters. While I note that only one of these matters, the Long file was tendered as an exhibit, the other fifteen named matters were canvassed in the hearing and at length.
On the basis of the evidence, I am not satisfied that a number of these matters involved inadequate performance on the part of the applicant.
On the basis of the evidence, I am not satisfied that in those of the named matters where the applicant’s performance may well have been less than adequate, such matters were on every occasion effectively and properly brought to the applicant’s attention. I note that Singer claims that he went through all of these matters with the applicant on 29 July but I also note that while Mr McDonald cross-examined the applicant on these matters he never at any stage put Singer’s claim of a detailed discussion on 29 July. I am not satisfied such detailed discussion took place.
However, I do find that:
(a) Singer’s note of 13 July re Sokor
(b)Parson’s discussion with the applicant on 19 July re the note to Carla on the Richardson matter
(c)Parson’s undated and unsigned note referring to the applicant’s minutes (Richardson 18 July and Waaleboer 21 July)
(d) the letter to the applicant on 28 July
(e) the unsigned memo of 15 September
were all serious communications expressing dissatisfaction with the applicant’s performance and should have been accepted by the applicant in that light.
However, none of these matters, be they in some cases matters which reflected adversely on the applicant’s performance, or be they, in other cases, matters which in no way reflect adversely on the applicant’s performance, was a determinant in the respondent’s decision to terminate the applicant’s employment.
Thirdly, having found the termination was based on a perception of inadequate performance and conduct in respect of the applicant’s handling of the Long file, I turn to that conduct and performance to assess whether this constituted a valid ground for termination.
I find that an adverse assessment of conduct and performance based on a perception that the applicant as an employee solicitor had concealed from his principals certain defects and omissions in the conduct of an action in the Magistrates Court could indeed constitute a valid ground for termination.
I find that an adverse assessment of conduct and performance based on a perception that the applicant as an employee solicitor had concealed from his principals certain defects and omissions which were assumed to have resulted in judgment being entered against a client or clients of the respondent firm could indeed constitute a valid ground for termination.
However, assuming that such perception could constitute a valid ground for termination, the Court needs to determine whether a termination based on such a perception was on invalid grounds or nevertheless harsh, unjust and unreasonable.
On 15 July 1994, solicitors acting for Tildens Holdings Pty Ltd (trading as Ian Mac Toyota), the plaintiff, filed an application returnable in the Magistrates Court at Moe on 10 August 1994. The application summoned the defendant, Anthony William Long, to attend at the hearing of an application by the plaintiff for orders that:
the defendant’s notice of defence be struck out for failure to comply with paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of orders made on 23 June 1994
the defendant pay the plaintiff’s costs of the application.
The defendant was a client of Simon Parsons and Company. Francois Murat had the carriage of the matter on behalf of Simon Parsons and Company. Murat failed to appear at the Magistrates Court on 10 August and he failed to advise the client, Anthony William Long, the defendant, to appear.
On 12 August 1994 the solicitors for the plaintiff, Tildens Holdings, wrote to Simon Parsons and Company and advised that:
Long’s notice of defence had been struck out
Long as defendant had been ordered to pay the plaintiff’s costs in respect of the application of 15 July
The plaintiff’s application filed on 15 July had otherwise been dismissed.
The solicitor’s letter (Exhibit R6) concludes as follows:
“Unless we receive your client’s cheque made payable to this firm in the sum of $562.80 representing the cost awarded today and the costs agreed to on 20 June 1994 and ordered by consent, then we shall without further notice take enforcement proceedings against your client seeking its recovery.
Our client now proposes to request an order against your client and to have its damages assessed and/or seek an order for specific performance.
Yours truly
Kevin Davine and Sons”
It is clear that Singer wrongly assumed that the effect of the defence of Mr Long being struck out was that judgment had been given for the plaintiff, Tildens Holdings. In fact the solicitors for the plaintiff were foreshadowing a future application either for damages or for specific performance.
The applicant, Murat, as the solicitor acting for the defendant, Long, took a curious approach to a client facing an order for assessment of damages or an order for specific performance and with the notice of defence struck out. On 24 August he briefed Counsel to appear at the continuation of a pre-hearing conference which had adjourned on 23 June to 25 August 1994. The applicant had appeared himself when the conference began on 23 June. The conference had been adjourned to 25 August “to enable each party to obtain further instructions from their client”. (See memo 28 June - Long file Exhibit A2).
The brief to Counsel contained “all file correspondence” and this included Exhibit R6, the letter of 12 August from the plaintiff’s solicitors advising that the defence had been struck out. However, the applicant, as instructing solicitor, did not alert Counsel specifically to this position either in the briefing memorandum or in person when he delivered the brief to Counsel on the evening prior to the re-scheduled pre-trial conference.
The Court has gained the impression that the applicant was at this stage under considerable stress; his workload was heavy; he was actively seeking employment elsewhere; and he seems to have failed to face up to the necessity to brief Counsel in a sensible and comprehensive manner.
The Court suspects that the applicant, who had made two attempts to settle the matter by faxed letters on 12 and 17 August (Long file Exhibit A2) was leaving it to Counsel in the hope that he would be able to achieve a satisfactory settlement on or in lieu of the pre-trial conference on 25 August 1994.
Counsel was disadvantaged. He gave evidence in this hearing and indicated that he thought he was briefed for a pre-trial conference. He did not read or absorb all papers in a brief in excess of eighty pages. He was taken by surprise on the morning of 25 August when the co-ordinator at Moe Court refused to list the pre-trial conference because the defence had been struck out on 10 August.
Counsel then located the relevant papers, considered them, endorsed the brief sheet (Exhibit R5) with a reference to the plaintiff’s intentions as set out in the letter of 12 August (Exhibit R6) and outlined the following options:
“1. make application to obtain leave to defend
through negotiations with the plaintiff’s solicitors reach agreement on the quantum of assessed damages
appear to contest the quantum of damages”
Mr McCurdy, Counsel for the applicant, pointed out that the applicant later explained the three courses of action to Mr Long (pages 97 and 98, transcript 9 March 1995 also file note 5 September 1994 Long file Exhibit A2). This evidence was not challenged in cross-examination. Mr Long’s instructions were that an application to reinstate the defence should not be made and that he wanted to wait until the plaintiff sought an assessment of damages. Mr McCurdy argues that nothing was kept from Mr Long and that the applicant did not conceal anything.
It is by no means clear that the applicant told Mr Long the full story but he did provide him with the options outlined by Counsel and he did act on his instructions.
Mr McCurdy vigorously rejected Mr Singer’s suggestion that the striking out of Long’s defence exposed the respondent to a possible negligence claim. While the Court does not agree with Mr McCurdy that Freeman v Rabinov [1981] VR 539 is authority for the proposition that “only in the most exceptional circumstances will a party in a proceeding be barred from contesting the matter at trial because of a failure to complete an interlocutory step” the case is clearly authority that power exists and can be readily utilised to set aside or vary an interlocutory order, even if there is no error in the initial order, on the basis that an injustice in the result flowed from the operation of the order. An application to reinstate the defence could have been made and it is very likely that a Court properly exercising its discretion would have reinstated the defence. More importantly, Singer became aware on 21 September that the defence had been struck out but he did not institute any application to reinstate the defence. Indeed, he reviewed the file and gave Mr Long the same advice given to him earlier by the applicant (letter of 6 October 1994 on the Long file, Exhibit A2). Again (Long File, Exhibit A2, 9 October 1994) the client gave instructions, in this case instructions to recommence negotiations for the purchase of the vehicle.
In my view, a prudent solicitor with a good working relationship with a partner or supervising solicitor would have alerted Singer and/or Parsons to the fact that the defence had been struck out and would have been more open with Counsel when seeking to resolve the situation. However, having said that, I do not consider the course taken by the applicant amounted to an active attempt to mislead Parsons or Singer. The applicant sought to resolve the matter himself. No doubt he also hoped to avoid justifiable criticism but I do not accept that his actions in the Long matter warranted a termination of his employment and he certainly was not given any reasonable opportunity to explain the action taken to remedy the situation. Indeed, it is interesting to note that after the termination Singer in effect endorsed the action taken by the applicant and substantially gave similar advice to Mr Long.
I have concluded that the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable and that it was not based on valid grounds. It was based on a misconception that judgment had been entered and that the matter was irretrievable. The applicant’s performance in the Long matter was definitely below standard. It warranted reprimand. However, that performance and conduct on its own did not warrant termination and furthermore the termination was based on a misconception as to what had occurred.
REMEDY
Having found a breach of S170DC and S170DE, it is necessary to consider the question of any remedy to which the applicant may be entitled.
The applicant did not initially seek reinstatement. However, at the commencement of the hearing he sought leave to amend his application and claimed:
An order requiring the employer to reinstate the employee by:
(a) re-appointing the employee to the position in which the employee was employed immediately before the termination; or
(b) appointing the employee to another position on terms and conditions no less favourable than those on which the employee was employed immediately before the termination.
Any order that the Court thinks necessary to maintain the continuity of the employee’s employment.
An order requiring the employer to pay to the employee the remuneration lost by the employee because of the termination.
Compensation in lieu of reinstatement if the Court finds that the reinstatement of the employee is impracticable.
Any other order that the Court sees fit.
REINSTATEMENT
I consider reinstatement completely impracticable.
In Nicolson v Heaven and Earth Gallery Pty Ltd [1994] 1 IRCR 199 at 210, Wilcox CJ stated:
“The word ‘impracticable’ requires and permits the Court to take into account all the circumstances of the case, relating to both the employer and employee, and to evaluate the practicability of a reinstatement order in a commonsense way. If a reinstatement order is likely to impose unacceptable problems or embarrassments, or seriously affect productivity, or harmony within the employer’s business, it may be ‘impracticable’ to order reinstatement, notwithstanding that the job remains available.”
This statement was endorsed by Von Doussa J in Cox v South Australian Meat Corporation (unreported) I.R.C.A. 13 June 1995.
I am satisfied that reinstatement would impose unacceptable problems and embarrassments and that relationships between the applicant and the present partners, Parsons and Singer, have broken down and are irretrievable and I note that in the period immediately prior to termination the applicant was seeking employment elsewhere.
COMPENSATION
In assessing compensation I turn again to Nicolson and to the comments of the Chief Justice at 212:
“In assessing compensation for a breach of S170DC, it is appropriate to consider what would have been likely to occur if that breach had not occurred. It should not be assumed that the employee would have been dismissed anyway. Such an assumption ignores the rationale of procedural fairness an every day experience that decision makers often change their minds when presented with another side of a case. It devalues S170DC to the point of redundancy.
On the other hand, it would be unrealistic for a Court automatically to assume that, if this employer had complied with S170DC, the employees employment would have continued indefinitely.”
I have observed the attitude of the applicant while giving evidence over many hours. I have noted the way in which he discounted and downgraded the written warnings and reprimands of 13 and 28 July and 15 September 1994.
I have not commented on most of the sixteen named matters mentioned in those written communications and have concluded that the applicant’s performance in respect to some of them was in no way adverse. However, I have also concluded that in some of those matters the applicant’s performance was unsatisfactory. Had the respondent relied on those matters and documented them adequately and counselled the applicant in a reasonable fashion and given the applicant reasonable opportunity to respond and to remedy defects, those matters might well have provided valid grounds for termination and might have led to a termination which was fair, just and reasonable.
If the applicant had continued in employment with the respondent, and the Court notes again that the applicant was actively seeking employment elsewhere, I am of the view that his future tenure would have been short indeed and that one of the parties would have ended the employment relationship.
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied that compensation equivalent to twenty weeks wages is adequate compensation and I calculate that as $13,076.80.
While I consider compensation of that order appropriate, such compensation is not based on any assumption that the applicant’s employment would have continued for such a period of time. I suspect one of the parties would have ended the relationship within a shorter period. I simply take the position that in all the circumstances compensation of the order equivalent to 20 weeks wages is adequate compensation for all aspects of the termination and that no greater or less compensation is warranted.
ORDER
Declaration that the termination of employment of Francois Murat by Simon Parsons and Company on 26 September 1994 contravened Sections 170DC and 170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988.
Within 21 days the respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $13,080.
I certify that this and the preceding page(s) are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment of Judicial Registrar Ryan.
Associate :
Date : 31 July 1995
Appearances:
Counsel for the Applicant : P L McCurdy
Solicitors for the Applicant : Slater and Gordon
Counsel for the Respondent : M McDonald
Solicitors for the Respondent : Simon Parsons and Co
Dates of Hearing : 8 to 10 March, 8,10 and 11 May 1995
Judgment : 31 July 1995
0
0
0