Roddy v Sydney Adventist Hospital Ltd - [2012] FMCA 1199

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

RODDY v SYDNEY ADVENTIST HOSPITAL LTD

[2012] FMCA 1199

CONSUMER LAW – Alleged representations as to employment – representations not made – reasonable period of notice – no new contract – application dismissed.

Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), ss.4, 18, 31, 238 of Sch.2
Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Act (No.2) 2010 (Cth), Sch.7
Trade Practices Act 1974, ss.52, 82
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.1.03
Federal Magistrates Court Act 1999

Wardley Australia Limited v Western Australia [1992] HCA 55; (1992) 175 CLR 514
Phillip Morris Incorporated v Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd [1981] HCA 7; (1982) 148 CLR 457
Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally and Anor [1999] HCA 27; 198 CLR 511; 163 ALR 270; 73 ALJR 839
Stack v Coast Securities (No 9) Pty Ltd [1983] HCA 36; (1983) 154 CLR 261
Johnson Tiles Pty Ltd v Esso Australia Pty Ltd [2000] FCA 1572; (2000) 104 FCR 564
Matheson v Findex Australia Pty Ltd (2011) 252 FLR 197; [2011] FMCA 135
Robertson v Knott Investment Pty Ltd(No.3) [2010] FCA 1074
Rana v University of South Australia [2004] FCA 559
Buckingham v KSN Engineering Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] FMCA 546; (2008) 177 ILR 427
Verge & Anor v Devere Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] FMCA 591
Verge & Anor v Devere Holdings Pty Ltd & Ors (No.4) [2008] FMCA 1421
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70; (1982) 148 CLR 658
Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd [1956] HCA 45; (1956) 96 CLR 99
Leotta v Public Transport Commission(N.S.W.) (1976) ALR 437; (1976) 50 ALJR 666
Sterling Silver v Iliff [2008] FCA 702
Aon Risk Services Australia Limited v Australian National University [2009] HCA 2
Jones v Dunkel [1959] HCA 8; (1959) 101 CLR 298
Keen Mar Corporation Pty Ltd v Labrador Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd [1989] FCA 46; (1989) ATPR (Digest) 46-048
McRae v Watson Wyatt Australia Pty Ltd [2008] FMCA 1568
Quinn v Jack Chia (Australia) Ltd [1992] VicRp 37; [1992] 1VR 567
Meek v Port of London Authority [1918] 2 Ch 96
O’Connor v the Argus and Australasian Ltd (1957) VR 374
Con-Stan Industries of Australia Pty Ltd v Norwich Winterthur Insurance (Australia) Ltd [1986] HCA 14; (1986) 160 CLR 226
Rankin v Marine Power International Pty Ltd [2001] VSC 150; (2001) 107 IR 117
IOOF Building Society Pty Ltd v Foxedon Pty Ltd [2009] VSCA 138; (2009) 23 VR 536
R v Industrial Commission of South Australia; Ex parte Adelaide Milk Supply Co-operative Ltd (1997) 16 SASR 6
Jones v Department of Energy & Minerals (1995) 60 IR 304
Fosters Group Ltd v David Kou Tien Wing (2005) 148 IR 224; [2005] VSCA 322
Fryar v System Services Pty Ltd (1996) 137 ALR 321
Lavings v Barclay Mowlem Construction (NSW) Ltd (1994) 99 IR 247
Brambles Holdings Limited v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA…

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 Roddy v Sydney Adventist Hospital 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: [2012] FMCA 1199
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jordan Roddy made an application to the Federal Magistrates Court of Australia under the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) for alleged misleading and deceptive conduct by Sydney Adventist Hospital Ltd (SAH) prior to his employment with SAH. Roddy also brought a common law claim for breach of an implied term of his contract for reasonable notice of termination of employment. The Court held that Roddy failed to prove his case under the ACL as the representations allegedly made by SAH were not misleading. The Court also held that Roddy did not suffer a substantial change in his employment duties that would have constituted a new contract of employment, and therefore the implied term of reasonable notice of termination of employment did not apply to him. The application was dismissed with costs.

Orders