Prince Rajput v QAL Technologies Pty Ltd - [2023] FWC 2617

[2023] FWC 2617

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.394—Unfair dismissal

Prince Rajput
v

QAL Technologies Pty Ltd

(U2023/6088)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT COLMAN

MELBOURNE, 10 OCTOBER 2023

Unfair dismissal claim – dispute about meaning of terms of settlement – application dismissed

The following is an edited version of a decision delivered on transcript earlier today, to which I have added a brief introduction and summary of the parties’ arguments. Mr Prince Rajput has made an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act). The respondent, QAL Technologies Pty Ltd (QAL), objects to the Commission determining that application because it contends that the parties reached a settlement agreement, which resolved the application and now constitutes a bar to its determination.

In early September 2023, the parties engaged in settlement negotiations which took place substantially by email correspondence. On 8 September 2023, QAL sent to Mr Rajput a letter that was expressed to be a deed of settlement and release, which set out the terms of an offer. It stated that Mr Rajput accepted an ‘ex gratia payment’ of ‘$30,000 gross’ in full and final settlement of all claims that he may have against QAL and that he released the company from any liability relating to his employment and its termination. At the end of the letter, under a heading ‘Acceptance of offer’, the letter stated that Mr Rajput had read the terms and accepted the offer, and that he had had an opportunity to receive legal advice. Mr Rajput signed the document electronically by ‘DocuSign’ on 11 September 2023.

At the hearing on 10 October 2023, Mr Rajput contended that QAL had not complied with the settlement agreement. He said that on 18 September 2023, he wrote to QAL objecting that he had received only $20,700, instead of the $30,000 referred to in the agreement. QAL told him that the $30,000 was a gross amount, from which tax was required to be deducted. Mr Rajput responded, insisting that he be paid a net amount of $30,000, and noting that he had earlier requested the company to remove the words ‘less tax’ from the draft document because he believed that the payment was not subject to taxation. The company had then removed the words ‘less tax’ from the document. Mr Rajput said that he was entitled to a payment of $30,000, and because he had not received it, the Commission should proceed to determine his unfair dismissal application.

QAL contended that the settlement agreement had resolved Mr Rajput’s unfair dismissal claim and that the Commission should now dismiss the application. It said that the company had complied with its obligations under the settlement agreement, as the payment of $30,000 was stated to be a gross amount. It submitted that, although the words ‘less tax’ were removed from the draft settlement document, that did not mean that tax was not payable and it did not mean that the $30,000 was now a net

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Prince Rajput v QAL Technologies Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2023] FWC 2617
Decision Date: 10 OCTOBER 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Prince Rajput has applied for an unfair dismissal remedy under the Fair Work Act 2009. The respondent, QAL Technologies Pty Ltd, objects to the Commission determining the application on the basis that the parties reached a settlement agreement that resolved the application. The dispute concerns the meaning of the terms of the settlement agreement, specifically whether the $30,000 payment was to be gross or net of tax. Mr Rajput signed the settlement agreement but later claimed that he only received $20,700, and that the company had failed to comply with the agreement. QAL argues that it fulfilled its obligations under the settlement agreement by paying the gross amount of $30,000, as stated in the agreement, and that Mr Rajput's entitlement to a net amount of $30,000 was never agreed upon.

The legal issue for the Commission to decide is whether the settlement agreement constituted a complete answer to Mr Rajput's unfair dismissal claim, thereby barring the application. The court must determine whether Mr Rajput's application has any reasonable prospect of success. The court found that the Commission has no power to determine disputes about the meaning of a settlement agreement between the parties. Instead, the court noted that Mr Rajput can sue for breach of contract if he believes the settlement agreement entitles him to a gross amount of $30,000. The court also offered its opinion that the reference to a gross payment in the settlement agreement can only mean that tax will be deducted. Therefore, the court concluded that the settlement agreement is a complete answer to Mr Rajput's application and that the application has no reasonable prospect of success.

In light of the above, the court dismissed Mr Rajput's unfair dismissal application under section 587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The court found that the settlement agreement constituted a complete answer to Mr Rajput's application and that it cured any unfairness in his dismissal. The court also noted that it may have regard to settlement agreements in considering whether to dismiss an application under section 587 of the Act. The court found that the application had no reasonable prospect of success, and it was appropriate to dismiss the matter under section 587(1)(c).

Orders