Skordou v CFMG Administration Pty Ltd - [2024] QCAT 236

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Skordou & Anor v CFMG Administration Pty Ltd [2024] QCAT 236

PARTIES:

FOTIS SKORDOU

(applicant)

FTPS GROUP INVESTMENTS PTY LTD ACN 642 660 580

(applicant)

v

CFMG ADMINISTRATION PTY LTD ACN 162 103 602

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

Q613/23

MATTER TYPE:

Other minor civil dispute matters

DELIVERED ON:

9 May 2024

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2024

HEARD AT:

Southport

DECISION OF:

Adjudicator Alan Walsh

ORDERS:

1.     The Respondent must within 14 days of today file with the Southport Registry and email to the Applicants:

(a)      An indexed and paginated bundle of documents that are directly relevant to the issues raised by the Response.

(b)      All affidavits or statutory declarations of evidence in chief of witnesses on which it wishes to rely in support of the Response.

2.     The Applicants must within 14 days after service of the documents referred to in Order 1 file with the Southport Registry and email to the Respondent:

(a)     An indexed and paginated bundle of documents other than those already filed with the Application for minor debt that are directly relevant in rebuttal.

(b)     All affidavits or statutory declarations of evidence in chief of witnesses on which they wish to rely in reply.

3.     I DIRECT the parties to confer without prejudice by telephone within 7 days thereafter to see if they can agree on terms of settlement and that they jointly file with the Southport Registry an Application for Consent Orders in the form published on the QCAT Website in the Forms section if terms of settlement are agreed.

4.     I DIRECT that the Southport Registry list the case for a hearing for a date not earlier than 60 days from today with an allowance of 2.5 hours for hearing.

CATCHWORDS:

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL – MINOR CIVIL DISPUTE – APPLICATION FOR MINOR DEBT – where Applicants sue for unpaid commissions payable pursuant to employment agreement for real estate marketing and sale – whether contract wholly or partly in writing or oral or varied orally – where employment agreement in writing admitted by Respondent – where oral agreement or oral variation of agreement denied – where breach of employment contract duties alleged – where liability denied

EMPLOYMENT LAW – EFFECT OF INDUSTRIAL AWARDS, AGREEMENTS OR LEGISLATION ON EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT – JURISDICTION – GENERALLY – whether employment contract source of claims made – whether Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) also source of entitlement – whether statute sole source of entitlement – whether claims made within Tribunal jurisdiction – whether Tribunal should exercise jurisdiction

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 12, s 26, s 323, s 539, s 545, s 548

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld), s 12

Byrne & Frew v Australian Airlines (1995) 185 CLR 410
Ervin v Smipat Pty Ltd trading as LJ Hooker Burleigh Heads [2013] QCATA 153
Ford v Thexton trading as Family Legal and Thexton Lawyers [2014] QCATA 180
JF Hodge Pty Ltd v Brown [2013] QCATA 36
Josephson v Walker

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 Skordou v CFMG Administration 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: [2024] QCAT 236
Decision Date: 9 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Skordou v CFMG Administration Pty Ltd, the applicant sued for unpaid commissions under an employment agreement for real estate marketing and sale. The dispute was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), a minor civil dispute jurisdiction. The applicant claimed that the respondent was liable for commissions under a written employment agreement, while the respondent denied the existence of such an agreement or any oral agreement or variation. The respondent also denied liability for breach of the employment contract.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the claims made by the applicant were within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. This hinged on whether the source of the claims was the employment contract or the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The respondent argued that the statute was the sole source of the applicant's entitlement, thus removing the matter from the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the claims were within its jurisdiction as they were partly based on the employment contract.

The Tribunal ordered the respondent to provide a bundle of relevant documents and affidavits within 14 days, after which the applicant was to respond in kind. The parties were directed to confer without prejudice to see if they could agree on terms of settlement. If they could not, the matter was listed for a hearing with an allowance of 2.5 hours, not earlier than 60 days from the date of the order.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The Respondent must within 14 days of today file with the Southport Registry and email to the Applicants:

(a) An indexed and paginated bundle of documents that are directly relevant to the issues raised by the Response.

(b) All affidavits or statutory declarations of evidence in chief of witnesses on which it wishes to rely in support of the Response.

2. The Applicants must within 14 days after service of the documents referred to in Order 1 file with the Southport Registry and email to the Respondent:

(a) An indexed and paginated bundle of documents other than those already filed with the Application for minor debt that are directly relevant in rebuttal.

(b) All affidavits or statutory declarations of evidence in chief of witnesses on which they wish to rely in reply.

3. I DIRECT the parties to confer without prejudice by telephone within 7 days thereafter to see if they can agree on terms of settlement and that they jointly file with the Southport Registry an Application for Consent Orders in the form published on the QCAT Website in the Forms section if terms of settlement are agreed.

4. I DIRECT that the Southport Registry list the case for a hearing for a date not earlier than 60 days from today with an allowance of 2.5 hours for hearing.

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.