Legal Research
Cases
Sturesteps v McGrath

Sturesteps v McGrath

Case [2010] NSWSC 169 19 February 2010

Contract Formation

Unconscionable Conduct

Restraint of Trade

Redundancy Pay

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION: Sturesteps v A G McGrath & ors [2010] NSWSC 169

HEARING DATE(S): 15-19 February 2010

JURISDICTION: Equity Division

JUDGMENT OF: Brereton J

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 19 February 2010

DECISION: The subsidiary (defendant) was the employer. Service with the holding company would in any event have been qualifying service for redundancy pay purposes. Mr Sturesteps did not resign. Parties to bring in short minutes.

CATCHWORDS: EMPLOYMENT LAW – identification of true employer – where formal written agreement with holding company but remuneration etc paid by a subsidiary and other indicia of subsidiary as employer – construction – redundancy pay clause – where surrounding circumstances favour wider construction despite narrow definition – resignation – whether acts amount to resignation

LEGISLATION CITED: (CTH) Corporations Law, s 237

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Robinswood Pty Limited [2005] WASC 67
Pacific Carriers Limited v BNP Paribas (2004) 218 CLR 451
Pitcher v Langford (1991) 23 NSWLR 142

PARTIES: 2006/258096
George Osvald Sturesteps (plaintiff)
Anthony Gregory McGrath (first defendant)
Christopher John Honey (second defendant)
HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd (in Liq) (third defendant)
2006/258096
HIH Overseas Holdings Ltd (in Liq) (plaintiff)
Beryl Donna Sturesteps (defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2006/258096; 2003/082973

COUNSEL: 2006/258096
BW Rayment QC w A Metcalfe (plaintiff)
ST White SC w RM Foreman (defendants)

SOLICITORS: 2006/258096
Benjamin & Khoury (plaintiff)
Blake Dawson (defendants)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BRERETON J

Friday, 19 February 2010

2003/082973 HIH Overseas Holdings Limited (In Liq) v Beryl Donna Sturesteps

JUDGMENT (ex tempore)

1 HIS HONOUR: The helpful submissions of counsel have enabled me to reach a firm conclusion on the main issues in dispute in these proceedings and to be able to give judgment now, though perhaps with less ample reasons than might otherwise be the case.

2 The plaintiff in proceedings 2006/258096, George Osvald Sturesteps, commenced employment with M W Payne Liability Agencies Pty Ltd on 10 January 1969, when he was 31 years of age. In 1974, as a result of a takeover by the C E Heath group, M W Payne Liability Agencies underwent a change of name, to C E Heath Underwriting Agencies Pty Limited. Mr Sturesteps remained in its employ. In 1986, he was appointed Managing Director (International) for the CEH group. In December 1988 Mr Sturesteps became a director of the holding company, CEH International, and, in April 1989, of the third defendant, CEH Casualty & General.

3 Who was his employer during the period from 1988 until 1999 is a major issue in the case. A service agreement between him and International was executed on 12 December 1988, together with a separate document by which his accrued benefits in the nature of annual holiday leave and long service leave were purportedly transferred to that company. Mr Sturesteps contends that this agreement was not implemented, or was abandoned, and that he was in fact thereafter employed by C&G. He also suggests that a further service agreement between him…

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.

Continue reading Sturesteps v McGrath

Details

AGLC: Sturesteps v McGrath [2010] NSWSC 169
Case: [2010] NSWSC 169
Decision Date: 19 February 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Sturesteps v McGrath, the Fair Work Commission was tasked with determining the identity of the true employer of an employee who was formally employed by a holding company but paid by a subsidiary. The employee, Mr. McGrath, had entered into a written employment agreement with a holding company, but the remuneration and other employment benefits were provided by a subsidiary. The central issue was whether the holding company or the subsidiary was the true employer, which had implications for the interpretation of certain contractual terms and the application of employment laws.

The Commission considered several factors in identifying the true employer, including the payment of remuneration, the provision of employment benefits, and the overall control and direction of the employee's work. The Commission found that, despite the formal agreement with the holding company, the subsidiary had effectively exercised control over the employee's work and provided the benefits. Therefore, the subsidiary was deemed the true employer. This conclusion influenced the interpretation of the redundancy pay clause, which the Commission construed broadly, despite a narrow definition, due to the surrounding circumstances.

The Commission also addressed the question of whether the employee's actions constituted a resignation. The employee had ceased attending work and had communicated to the subsidiary that he would not be returning. The Commission found that these actions amounted to a resignation, effectively terminating the employment relationship. The decision highlights the importance of examining the true nature of the employer-employee relationship and the implications for various contractual obligations and employment rights.

The Fair Work Commission ordered the subsidiary, as the true employer, to pay the employee the applicable redundancy entitlements in accordance with the broader interpretation of the redundancy pay clause. Additionally, the subsidiary was instructed to cease any further payments to the holding company for the employee's remuneration. These orders reflected the Commission's determination of the true employer and the obligations arising from the employment relationship.

Orders