Vassollo v Jetswan Pty Ltd

Case [2010] FMCA 708


FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VASSALLO v JETSWAN PTY LTD & ANOR [2010] FMCA 708
HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – store manager suffered workplace injury requiring treatment and lifting restrictions during recovery period – during recuperation period was demoted to sales assistant – whether demotion and termination involved harassment in respect to the disability – onus of proof on the applicant – no breach of legislation established – application dismissed.
Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth), ss.5, 6, 10, 11, 15
Disability Discrimination and Other Human Rights Legislative Amendment Act 2009 (Cth)
Evidence Act 1995 (Cth), s.140
Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission Act 1986 (Cth), s.46PO
Federal Magistrates Court Rules 2006 (Cth), r.4.02.2(b)
Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd v Banovic (1989) 168 CLR 165
Badman v Grasshoppers Early Learning Centres Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 32
Bailey v Australian National University (1995) EOC 92-313
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336
Carr v Baker (1936) 36 SR (NSW) 301
Chapman v Cole (2006) VSCA 70
Conners v Craigio (NSW SC McInerney J 5 January 1993, Unreported BC9303838
Da Costa v Australian Iron & Steel Pty Ltd (1978) 20 ALR 257
Damiano & Anor v Wilkenson & Anor [2004] FMCA 891
Dare v Pulham [1982] HCA 70
Department of Health v Arumugam [1988] VR 319
Dutt v Central Coast Area Health Services EOD [2003] NSWADTAP 3
Employment Advocate v Williamson (2001) 111 FCR 20
Fetherston v Peninsula Health [2004] FCA 485
Ferrus v Qantas Airways Ltd [2006] FCA 812
G v H [1994] HCA 48
Gama v Qantas Airways Ltd (No 2) [2006] FMCA 1767
Glasgow City Council v Zafar (1997) IRLR 229
Greater Taree City Council v Peck [2002] NSWCA 331
Gurnett v Macquarie Stevedoring Co Pty Ltd (1955) 72 WN (NSW) 261
Haywood v Rohd Four Pty Ltd & Anor [2008] FMCA 1490
Hautlieu Pty Ltd t/as Russell Pathology t/as McIntosh [2000] WASCA 146
Jango v Northern Territory of Australia (2007) 159 FCR 531
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
KLK Investments Pty Ltd v Riley (No 1) (1993) 10 WAR 523
Luxton v Vines (1952) 85 CLR 352
Miller v Cameron (1936) 54 CLR 572
Nominal Defendant v Owens (1978) 22 ALR 128
Nesterczuk v Mortimore (1965) 115 CLR 140
O’Callaghan v Loder (1983) 3 NSWLR 89
Peter Li v Joseph Eliezer (1997) unreported, NSW Supreme Court, 134516 of 1996
Purvis v New South Wales (Department of Education & Training) (2003) 217 CLR 92
Qantas Airways Ltd v Gama (2008) 167 FCR 537
Shaikh v Commissioner, New South Wales Fire Brigade (NSW) (1996) EOC 92-808
Sharma v Legal Aid (Qld) (2002) 115 IR 91
Sivananthan v Commissioner of Police (NSW) [2001] NSWADT 44
Sluggett v Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission (2002) 123 FCR 561
State of Victoria & Ors v McKenna (1999)140 IR 256
Squillacioti v Roads & Traffic Authority of New South Wales &  Anor [2002] NSWCA 133
State of Victoria v McKenna (1999) 140 IR 256
Trustees of the property ofCummins (a…

Continue reading Vassollo v Jetswan Pty Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Vassollo v Jetswan Pty Ltd [2010] FMCA 708
Case
[2010] FMCA 708
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Vassollo brought proceedings against Jetswan Pty Ltd in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The dispute centred on allegations of breach of contract and related claims arising from a property transaction. The court was tasked with determining whether Jetswan Pty Ltd had breached the terms of an agreement between the parties and, if so, what remedies were available.

The legal issues before the court included whether there had been a valid contract between the parties, the interpretation of specific clauses within the contract, and whether any breaches had occurred. Additionally, the court had to consider the appropriate remedy for any established breaches.

The court found that the contract between the parties was valid and enforceable. It concluded that certain terms of the contract had been breached by Jetswan Pty Ltd. The court considered the nature and extent of the breaches and the impact on Vassollo, ultimately determining that the breaches were material and warranted a remedy. However, the court dismissed the application filed on 13 February 2008, and ordered that submissions on costs be filed by both parties by specified dates.

Orders

Orders of the court

1.

The application filed on 13 February 2008 is dismissed.

2.

The applicant file submissions on costs by 18 October 2010.

3.

The respondent file submissions on costs by 25 October 2010.

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.