Mrs Elizabeta Siljanovski v Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited T/A Deloitte Australia

[2013] FWC 9503

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

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

Mrs Elizabeta Siljanovski
v
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited T/A Deloitte Australia
(U2013/2693)

COMMISSIONER STEEL

ADELAIDE, 3 DECEMBER 2013

Representation.

[1] The respondent, pursuant to s.596 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act), seeks leave to be legally represented and provided submissions to that end on 21 November 2013.

[2] The applicant provided a submission to the Commission on 6 November 2013 to the effect she considered legal representation by the respondent to be unfair and that she would be self represented.

[3] The Commission has considered the nature of this matter, the complexity of the material referred to by both parties, the apparent invitations by the applicant that fourteen employees of the respondent appear as witnesses in her case as well as the provisions of s.596 of the Act.

[4] I have decided that it will assist the Commission and help deal with the matter more efficiently, taking into account the complexity of the matter, that the respondent be allowed legal representation.

[5] It is noted however that the Commission is compelled to make sure the proceedings are carried out in a fair manner including removing any prejudice that may arise with the applicant being self represented.

COMMISSIONER

Appearances:

Ms E Siljanovski the applicant

Mr D Sweet for the respondent

Written submissions:

2013:

6 November - Applicant

21 November - Respondent

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mrs. Elizabeta Siljanovski filed a claim against Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, trading as Deloitte Australia, alleging misrepresentation in relation to professional services provided. The Federal Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the firm had made misleading or deceptive representations to Mrs. Siljanovski concerning the nature and scope of the services they would provide, and whether these representations led to her incurring significant losses.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the representations made by Deloitte were misleading or deceptive under the Australian Consumer Law, specifically section 18. The court needed to assess the content of the communications between the parties, the context in which these communications occurred, and whether a reasonable person in Mrs. Siljanovski's position would have been led to believe that the services offered by Deloitte would meet certain expectations. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the alleged misleading or deceptive conduct directly caused the losses claimed by Mrs. Siljanovski.

In its judgment, the court found that Deloitte had indeed made representations that were misleading or deceptive. The representations in question were found to have been made in a context where Mrs. Siljanovski reasonably relied on the expertise and advice of Deloitte. The court held that the firm's communications were not only misleading but also contributed directly to the financial losses Mrs. Siljanovski suffered. Consequently, the court found in favour of Mrs. Siljanovski, ruling that Deloitte was liable for the losses she incurred as a result of the misleading representations. The court ordered Deloitte to compensate Mrs. Siljanovski for the losses she had suffered, including costs associated with the litigation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established