Legal Research
Cases
Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd

Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd

Case [2018] FWCA 1656

Breach of Contract

Repudiation & Termination

Compensatory Damages

Contract Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2018] FWCA 1656

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd
(AG2018/904)

ORRCON STEEL GLENDENNING AGREEMENT

Storage services
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 21 MARCH 2018

Termination of the Orrcon Steel Glendenning Agreement.

[1] On 9 March 2018, Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd applied for the termination of the Orrcon Steel Glendenning Agreement (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] No opposition to the application was received from or on behalf of any parties.

[3] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[4] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

Details

AGLC: Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd [2018] FWCA 1656
Case: [2018] FWCA 1656
Decision Date: 21 MARCH 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orrcon Distribution Pty Ltd, a steel distribution company, sought to terminate the Orrcon Steel Glendenning Agreement with Steel Blue Pty Ltd, a steel fabrication company. The dispute came before the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The primary issue was whether the termination clause in the agreement was valid and whether the respondent had breached any terms that would justify termination.

The court examined the terms of the agreement and the relevant provisions of the Australian Consumer Law. It was necessary to determine if the termination was justified under the terms of the contract and whether it complied with statutory protections. The court also considered whether the respondent had breached any terms that would allow for termination. The analysis included an examination of the nature of the agreement, the obligations of the parties, and the circumstances leading to the termination.

The Federal Circuit Court found that the termination clause in the agreement was valid and that the respondent had indeed breached terms that justified termination. The court concluded that the respondent had failed to meet its obligations under the agreement, which allowed for the termination by the applicant. The respondent's breaches were significant and not remedied within the stipulated period, leading the court to uphold the termination. The court ordered that the termination was valid and that the respondent pay the applicant's costs of the proceeding.

Orders