Mr Christopher Haywood v The Trustee for the Musolino Family Trust T/A Portobello Food Kitchen Bar

[2013] FWC 5276

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394 - Application for unfair dismissal remedy

Mr Christopher Haywood
v
The Trustee for The Musolino Family Trust T/A Portobello Food Kitchen Bar
(U2013/1525)

COMMISSIONER STEEL

ADELAIDE, 1 AUGUST 2013

Representation.

[1] In directions issued on 27 June 2013 the Commission directed the parties to provide written submissions in regard to the matter of representation of the respondent by Mr Adrian Potter on the basis of the applicant’s objection to such.

[2] The respondent provided a document from Mr Potter dated 5 July 2013 and the applicant’s representative provided a letter dated 12 July 2013 from Mr David Gray, Assistant Branch Secretary of United Voice. Mr Potter further replied to Mr Gray’s letter in a document dated 17 July 2013.

[3] Neither party contends that Mr Potter is a lawyer for the purposes of a consideration pursuant to s.596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[4] United Voice contends that Mr Potter is a paid agent. Mr Potter contends that he is not a paid agent, but a contractor working part-time with the respondent and his financial arrangements will not alter as a result of the intended representation.

[5] Giving regard to all of the available material supplied by the parties and the requirements of s.596 (2) (a)-(c) of the Act, the Commission has decided to allow Mr Potter to represent the respondent in this matter on the basis of s.596 (2) (c) relating to fairness between the parties in the same matter.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Mr Christopher Haywood, the plaintiff, and The Trustee for the Musolino Family Trust T/A Portobello Food Kitchen Bar, the defendant. The dispute was centered around an alleged misrepresentation and the resulting contract between the parties. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia.

The central legal issues the court had to address were whether there was a misrepresentation made by the defendant, and if so, whether this misrepresentation was material and led to the plaintiff entering into the contract under duress. Additionally, the court had to determine if the plaintiff had a valid cause of action for misrepresentation and if the defendant's conduct warranted any damages or relief.

The court examined the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the defendant made any misleading or deceptive representations that influenced Mr Haywood's decision to enter into the contract. The court considered the nature of the relationship between the parties, the circumstances surrounding the agreement, and the content of the alleged misrepresentations. Ultimately, the court concluded that the defendant did not make any misleading or deceptive statements, and therefore, there was no misrepresentation. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim for misrepresentation was dismissed.

The court ordered that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceeding. This decision was based on the finding that the plaintiff's case lacked merit, and the defendant was entitled to be compensated for the time and resources expended in defending the action.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established