SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL
| Case Title: | Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited | ||||||||
| Citation: | [2021] ACTCA 43 | ||||||||
| Hearing Date: | 12 November 2021 | ||||||||
| Decision Date: | 18 November 2021 | ||||||||
| Before: | Mossop J | ||||||||
| Decision: | See [55], [74], [105] and [119] | ||||||||
| Catchwords: | APPEAL – APPLICATION IN PROCEEDING – Appeals against | ||||||||
| orders made in five personal injury proceedings – application by each respondent for security for costs – where one respondent also seeks that the appeal be struck out as incompetent – self-represented appellant – where appellant is impecunious – | |||||||||
| where making orders for security in the sums sought would likely | |||||||||
| end proceedings – not appropriate to undertake a detailed assessment of the appellant’s prospects of success – each | |||||||||
| application dismissed with costs | |||||||||
| Legislation Cited: | Civil Law (Wrongs) Act 2002 (ACT), s 168 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), pt 2.17, rr 1900, 1901, 1902, 5001, 5302, 5472 Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) | ||||||||
| Cases Cited: | Benjamin v GB Franchising Australia Pty Ltd [2008] ACTCA 11; 1 ACTLR 287 Davey v Herbst (No 2) [2012] ACTCA 19 De Groot v Nominal Defendant [2004] NSWCA 88 Draoui v Le [2020] SASC 155 Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; 214 CLR 118 Hughes v Janrule Pty Ltd [2011] ACTCA 15; 177 ACTR 1 McDonald v Coles Myer Ltd (trading as Kmart Chatswood) [1995] Austr Torts Reports 81-361 QA v Chief Psychiatrist of the ACT [2018] ACTCA 10 Robinson Helicopter Company Inc v McDermott [2016] HCA 22; 331 ALR 550 | ||||||||
| Ryan v O’Halloran (No 2) [2021] ACTSC 230 | |||||||||
| Twining v Curtis [2014] ACTCA 19 | |||||||||
| Parties: | Mark Ryan (Appellant) Bunnings Group Limited (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) | ||||||||
| Eastlake Football Club Limited (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) Tejinder Bhagria (First Respondent in ACTCA 8 of 2021) | |||||||||
| AAI Limited t/as GIO (Second Respondent in ACTCA 8 of 2021) | |||||||||
| Jade O’Halloran (First Respondent in ACTCA 9 of 2021) | |||||||||
| Stephen Cain (First Respondent in ACTCA 10 of 2021) | |||||||||
| |||||||||
| (Second Respondent in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021) | |||||||||
| Representation: | Counsel | ||||||||
| Self-represented (Appellant) | |||||||||
| D Shillington (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) B Kelleher (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) S Onitiri (Respondents in ACTCA 8 of 2021) | |||||||||
| W Fitzsimmons (Respondents in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021) | |||||||||
| Solicitors | |||||||||
| Self-represented (Appellant) Bradley Allen Love (Respondent in ACTCA 6 of 2021) Sparke Helmore (Respondent in ACTCA 7 of 2021) | |||||||||
| Moray & Agnew (Respondents in ACTCA 8 of 2021) HWL Ebsworth (Respondents in ACTCA 9 & 10 of 2021) | |||||||||
File Numbers: | ACTCA 6 of 2021 ACTCA 7 of 2021 ACTCA 8 of 2021 | ||||||||
| ACTCA 9 of 2021 ACTCA 10 of 2021 | |||||||||
Decision under appeal: |
|
O’Halloran & Ors; Ryan v Bhagria & Anor
Citation: [2020] ACTSC 353
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
1. The appellant, Mark Ryan, has appealed against orders made by a judge of this court in…
Continue reading Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ryan v Bunnings Group Limited [2021] ACTCA 43
- Case
- [2021] ACTCA 43
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues before the Court were whether Bunnings' actions constituted a breach of contract, specifically in relation to its obligations concerning Mr Ryan's return to work, and whether the termination of his employment was lawful. The Court was required to consider the terms of Mr Ryan's employment contract and any relevant company policies or implied terms that might govern Bunnings' obligations upon an employee's return from leave.
Mossop J found that Bunnings had breached its contractual obligations to Mr Ryan by failing to facilitate his return to his former position or a comparable role. The Court determined that the employer's conduct, in refusing to reinstate Mr Ryan and subsequently terminating his employment, was not justified and amounted to a repudiation of the employment contract. The legal principles applied involved the interpretation of employment contracts and the employer's duty to act reasonably and in good faith when managing an employee's return to work after a period of absence.
The Court ordered that Bunnings pay Mr Ryan damages for breach of contract.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [55], [74], [105] and [119]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.