Tasman Capital Pty Ltd v Sinclair

Case [2008] NSWCA 248

New South Wales


Court of Appeal


CITATION: Tasman Capital Pty Ltd v Sinclair & Anor [2008] NSWCA 248
HEARING DATE(S): 9 September 2008
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 
10 October 2008
JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; McColl JA; Young CJ in Eq
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 5 October 2008
DECISION: Appeal dismissed with costs.
CATCHWORDS: CONTRACT - whether concluded agreement made - binding agreement although to be later supplemented by refinement or agreement on other matters - on facts, was concluded agreement - DAMAGES - wrongful dismissal - income earned during period for which was entitled to notice - whether onus on employee to prove income as part of proving loss - or on employer to prove - onus on employer.
CATEGORY: Principal judgment
CASES CITED: Anaconda Nickel Ltd v Tarmoola Australia Pty Ltd (2000) 22 WAR 101;
Andros Springs (Owners) v World Beauty (Owners); The World Beauty (1970) P 144;
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v XIVth Commonwealth Games Ltd (1988) 18 NSWLR 540;
Bagnall v National Tobacco Corporation of Australia Ltd (1934) 34 SR 421;
Barrier Wharves Ltd v W Scott Fell & Co Ltd (1908) 5 CLR 647;
Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd v G R Securities Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 622;
B Seppelt & Sons Ltd v Commissioner for Main Roads (1975) 1 BPR 9147;
Board of Education of Alamogordo Public School District No 1 v Jennings 701 P (2d) 361 (1985) (NMSC);
Brambles Holdings Ltd v Bathurst City Council [2001] NSWCA 61; (2001) 53 NSWLR 153;
British Western House Electric & Manufacturing Company Ltd v Underground Electric Railways Company of London Ltd [1912] AC 673;
CSR v Maddelana [2006] HCA 1; (2006) 224 ALR 1;
Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Glengallan Investments Pty Ltd [2004] HCA 55; (2004) 218 CLR 471;
Film Bars Pty Ltd v Pacific Film Laboratories Pty Ltd (1979) 1 BPR 925;
Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corporation of New Zealand Ltd (2002) 2 NZLR 433;
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22; (2003) 214 CLR 118;
Garnac Grain Company Incorporated v HMF Faure & Fairclough Ltd [1968] AC 1130;
Goodman v Pocock (1850) 15 QB 576; 117 ER 577;
G R Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631 (McLelland J);
G R Securities Pty Ltd v Baulkham Hills Private Hospital Pty Ltd (1986) 40 NSWLR 631 (CA);
Goldburg v Shell Oil of Australia Ltd (1990) 95 ALR 711;
Harding v Harding (1929) 29 SR 96;
Horn v Duke Homes 755 F (2d) 599 (1985);
Hussey v Eels [1990] 2 QB 227;
John R Keith Pty Ltd v Multiplex Constructions (NSW) Pty Ltd [2002] NSWSC 43;
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298;
Lavarach v Woods of Colchester Ltd (1967) 1 QB 278;
Masters v Cameron (1954) 91 CLR 353;
Monroe Schneider Associates (Inc) v No 1 Raberem Pty Ltd (1991) FCR…

Continue reading Tasman Capital Pty Ltd v Sinclair

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tasman Capital Pty Ltd v Sinclair [2008] NSWCA 248
Case
[2008] NSWCA 248
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Tasman Capital Pty Ltd appealed to the New South Wales Court of Appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a dispute over a contract and wrongful dismissal. The primary dispute involved whether a binding agreement had been concluded between the parties, despite the intention for certain matters to be later supplemented or refined.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine two principal legal issues. Firstly, whether the parties had reached a concluded agreement, notwithstanding that further details were to be agreed upon or refined at a later stage. Secondly, in the context of a claim for damages for wrongful dismissal, the court had to determine which party bore the onus of proof regarding income earned by the dismissed employee during the period for which they were entitled to notice.

On the issue of contract formation, the Court of Appeal affirmed the principles that an agreement can be binding even if it is to be supplemented by further agreement on other matters, provided the essential terms have been agreed. The court found, on the facts before it, that a concluded agreement had indeed been reached. Regarding the damages for wrongful dismissal, the court held that the onus rested on the employer to prove any income earned by the employee during the notice period, rather than on the employee to prove their loss.

The appeal was dismissed, and Tasman Capital Pty Ltd was ordered to pay the costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed with costs.

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.