Naaman v Sleiman - [2014] NSWSC 1869

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Naaman v Sleiman [2014] NSWSC 1869
Hearing dates: 15, 17-18 December 2014
Decision date: 24 December 2014
Jurisdiction: Equity Division
Before: Stevenson J
Decision:
Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Catchwords: CONTRACT - construction - whether contract of employment - to what damages plaintiff entitled when terminated contract of employment - defendant paid plaintiff's mortgage - common ground defendant subrogated to mortgagee's rights - whether defendant entitled to balance of proceeds of sale
Cases Cited: Australia Mutual Provident Society v Allan (1978) 52 ALJR 407
Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435
Cochrane v Cochrane (1985) 3 NSWLR 403
Fitzgerald v Masters (1956) 95 CLR 420
Ghana Commercial Bank v Chandiram [1960] AC 732
Hollis v Vabu Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 44; 207 CLR 21
Massey v Crown Life Insurance Co [1978] 1 WLR 676
Plaimar Ltd v Waters Trading Co Ltd [1945] ALR 469
Westpac Banking Corporation v Tanzone Pty Ltd [2000] NSWCA 25; 9 BPR 17, 521
Texts Cited: N Seddon, R Bigwood and M Ellinghaus, Cheshire and Fifoot Law of Contract, (10th Aust ed 2012)
R P Meagher, J D Heydon and M J Leeming, Meagher, Gummow & Lehane's "Equity: Doctrines and Remedies" (4th ed, 2002)
I Neil and D Chin, The Modern Contract of Employment, (2012, Lawbook Co)
C Sappideen, P O'Grady, J Riley and G Warburton, Macken's Law of Employment, (7th ed, 2011, Lawbook Co)
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Anthony Naaman (Plaintiff)
Peter Sleiman (First Defendant)
Jaken Properties Australia Pty Ltd as trustee for the Sly Fox Family Trust (Second Defendant)
Jaken Property Group (In Liquidation) Third Defendant)
Representation: Counsel:
H Woods with M Char (Plaintiff)
J C Kelly SC with D P O'Connor (First and Second Defendants)
Solicitors:
KB Legals Pty Ltd (Plaintiff)
Logan Fox (First and Second Defendants)
SRM Lawyers (Third Defendant)

File Number(s): SC 2009/289622

Judgment

Introduction

Prior to 15 July 2005, the plaintiff, Mr Naaman, and Mr Craig Wheeler were the directors of Adult Education Academy Pty Ltd. Mr Naaman held 90 of the 100 issued shares in Adult Education. Mr Wheeler held the balance.

Adult Education then provided security training services to the entertainment, club and hotel industries.

Prior to 15 July 2005, Mr Naaman was the chief executive officer of Phantom Security Pty Ltd, Phantom Security Retail Pty Ltd, Phantom Australasia Pty Ltd and Phantom Man Power Pty Ltd (which Mr Naaman described as the "Phantom Group of Companies"). Mr Naaman was not a director of, nor had any shareholding in any of the Phantom Group. The sole director and shareholder of those companies was Mr Selwyn Barnard.

The Phantom Group of Companies provided security services to the hospitality industry.

At that time, the first defendant, Mr Sleiman was operating another business in the security industry under the name "AVS Group Australia"

In June and July 2005, Mr Naaman negotiated with Mr Sleiman to sell the shares in Adult Education and the Phantom Group (and thus, in…

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 Naaman v Sleiman

Details

AGLC: Naaman v Sleiman [2014] NSWSC 1869
Case: [2014] NSWSC 1869
Decision Date: 24 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Naaman v Sleiman, the plaintiff, Naaman, sought to determine the extent of his entitlement to damages following the termination of his employment contract. The defendant, Sleiman, had paid the plaintiff's mortgage as part of their agreement. The dispute centred on whether the defendant was subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee and if the defendant was entitled to the balance of proceeds from the sale of the property. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The primary legal issues revolved around the nature of the employment contract, the extent of damages owed to the plaintiff, and whether the defendant was subrogated to the mortgagee's rights. The court had to determine whether the employment contract constituted a contract of employment and, if so, what damages the plaintiff was entitled to upon termination. Additionally, the court needed to ascertain whether the defendant, having paid the mortgage, was subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee and, if so, what their entitlement was to the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the property.

In its decision, the court clarified that the relationship between the parties was indeed a contract of employment. The court assessed the damages owed to the plaintiff for the wrongful termination of the contract and found that the plaintiff was entitled to a specific amount. Regarding the mortgage payment, the court determined that the defendant was indeed subrogated to the rights of the mortgagee. Consequently, the defendant was entitled to the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the property. The court provided detailed reasoning on the nature of the mortgagee's rights and the principles of subrogation.

The court ordered that the defendant pay the plaintiff a specific sum as damages for the wrongful termination of the employment contract. Furthermore, the court ruled that the defendant was entitled to the balance of the proceeds from the sale of the property, as they had paid the mortgage and were subrogated to the mortgagee's rights. The court's decision provided clarity on the rights and obligations of both parties in the context of the employment contract and the mortgage arrangement.

Orders