Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: UGL Rail Services Pty Limited v Janik [2014] NSWCA 436 Hearing dates: 30, 31 October 2014 Decision date: 19 December 2014 Before: Emmett JA at [1];
Sackville AJA at [13];
Adamson J at [196]Decision: 1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the primary Judge on 18 December 2013.
3. In lieu of the orders referred to in Order 2, order judgment for the defendant.
4. Cross-appeal dismissed.
5. Set aside the orders made by the primary Judge on 11 March 2014.
6. In lieu of the orders referred to in Order 5, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.
7. Order the respondent/cross-appellant pay the appellant/cross-respondent's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
8. The respondent, if otherwise qualified, have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT - contract of employment - redundancy - meaning of "redundant" in context of respondent's employment contract - whether respondent's role had been effectively emptied of its duties and abolished - evidence of differences in duties performed by respondent and apparent successor not sufficient to render respondent's role redundant - finding of redundancy by the primary judge not supported by evidence
CONTRACT - contract of employment - share options - employment contract provided that the chief executive of the respondent's employer would recommend to employer's parent company that respondent be granted 40,000 options - whether primary judge erred in finding the employer did not breach employment contract in failing to convey recommendation to decision-maker - evidence established the recommendation was provided to the relevant decision-maker within the parent - breach of contract not establishedLegislation Cited: Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) s 27A Cases Cited: Amcor Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2005] HCA 10; 222 CLR 241
Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 63; 98 ER 969
Clark v Nomura Internation Plc [2000] IRLR 766
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2014] HCA 32; 88 ALJR 814
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Finance Sector Union of Australia [2002] FCAFC 193; 125 FCR 9
Dibb v Commissioner of Taxation [2004] FCAFC 126; 136 FCR 388
Electricity Generation Corporation v Woodside Energy Ltd [2014] HCA 7; 251 CLR 640
Encyclopaedia Britannica Australia Ltd v Campbell [2009] NSWCA 286
Foster's Group Ltd v Wing [2005] VSCA 322; 148 IR 224;
Hodgson v Amcor Ltd [2012] VSC 94; 264 FLR 1
Janik v UGL Rail Services Ltd (District…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd v Janik 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2014] NSWCA 436
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge erred in finding that Mr Janik's role was redundant, and whether UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd had breached the employment contract by failing to convey a recommendation for share options to the relevant decision-maker within the parent company.
The Court of Appeal found that the evidence did not support the primary judge's finding of redundancy. It held that the differences in duties between Mr Janik and his apparent successor were not sufficient to establish that his role had been effectively abolished or emptied of its duties. Regarding the share options, the Court found that the evidence established that the recommendation had been provided to the relevant decision-maker within the parent company, and therefore, a breach of contract in this regard was not established.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the primary judge's orders, and entered judgment for the defendant, UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd. The cross-appeal was dismissed, and Mr Janik was ordered to pay UGL Rail Services Pty Ltd's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal allowed.
2. Set aside the orders made by the primary Judge on 18 December 2013.
3. In lieu of the orders referred to in Order 2, order judgment for the defendant.
4. Cross-appeal dismissed.
5. Set aside the orders made by the primary Judge on 11 March 2014.
6. In lieu of the orders referred to in Order 5, order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs of the proceedings.
7. Order the respondent/cross-appellant pay the appellant/cross-respondent's costs of both the appeal and the cross-appeal.
8. The respondent, if otherwise qualified, have a certificate under the Suitors' Fund Act 1951 (NSW) in respect of the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
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.