Rakic v Johns Lyng Insurance Building Solutions (Victoria) Pty Ltd (Trustee)

Rakic v Johns Lyng Insurance Building Solutions (Victoria) Pty Ltd (Trustee) concerned an action brought by the applicant, Ms Rakic, against the respondent, Johns Lyng, alleging misleading or deceptive conduct and breach of contract. The applicant claimed that the respondent, through its representatives, made representations regarding the company's future profitability that induced her to enter into an employment contract. She further alleged that the employment contract included an oral term that the respondent would cover the cost of her motor vehicle lease. The respondent denied these claims.

The central legal issues the court had to resolve included whether the respondent's representations constituted misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, whether there were reasonable grounds for the predictions made, and if the contract included an oral term regarding the vehicle lease. The court also needed to determine the proper interpretation of the net profit clause in the employment contract. The evidence presented by the applicant included her testimony about conversations with the respondent's representatives, which the respondent disputed.

The court found that the respondent's representations about future profitability were misleading or deceptive because there were no reasonable grounds for those predictions. It also held that the applicant's employment contract did not include an oral term regarding the vehicle lease. The court interpreted the net profit clause to mean that the applicant was entitled to a proportion of the profit corresponding to her length of service in the 2013 financial year. Consequently, the court ordered the respondent to pay the applicant damages for the misleading or deceptive conduct and to compensate her for the net profit owed under the employment contract.

Further orders were made for the parties to submit written arguments on costs, interest, and proposed orders within specific timeframes, allowing the court to finalize the disposition of the application.