WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sheldrick

Link copied
Case Copied 23 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sheldrick [1999] FCA 843

APPEAL – appellant seeking to raise issue not argued before trial judge and not included in notice of appeal – whether Court in its discretion should permit a point to be raised on appeal that was not taken at trial.

DAMAGES – calculation of damages and interest – whether trial judge erred in “grossing up” damages to compensate for taxation of the interest component of the damages – whether calculation was of interest or of compensation for loss of use of money that should have been paid under the contract – whether interest should be awarded on damages for loss of use of money from date of breach to date of judgment.

CONTRACT OF EMPLOYMENT – breach – wrongful termination of employment – whether trial judge erred in failing to find that the respondent had suffered loss of opportunity to obtain valuable employment by reason of breach of further term of the contract that appellant procure appropriate visas and work permits for the respondent – assessment of worth of that chance.

COSTS – whether trial judge erred in exercising his discretion not to make a costs order against the respondent.

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 24, 28
Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) Pt III Div 2 subdiv AA (ss 27A – 27J), s 25(1)
Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) ss 51A, 52, 53B

G J McCarry, “Termination of Employment, Payment in Lieu of Notice, Garden Leave and the Right to Work” (1999) 12 AJLL 56

Bell v Lever Brothers, Limited [1932] AC 161 cited
Banque Commerciale SA en liquidation v Akhil Holdings Limited (1990) 169 CLR 279 cited
Sanders v Snell (1998) 72 ALJR 1508 cited
Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167 cited
Sellars v Adelaide Petroleum NL (1994) 179 CLR 332 cited

WT PARTNERSHIP (AUST) PTY LTD and WTP (HONG KONG) LTD v GRAHEME SHELDRICK
NG 1012 OF 1998

LEE, BRANSON AND MARSHALL JJ
25 JUNE 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1012 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

WT PARTNERSHIP (AUST) PTY LTD and
WTP (HONG KONG) LTD
Appellants

AND:

GRAHEME SHELDRICK
Respondent

JUDGES:

LEE, BRANSON AND MARSHALL JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

25 JUNE 1999

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal and cross-appeal be allowed and the amount of the judgment be varied from $253,000 to $245,240.

2.There be no order as to costs of the appeal or cross-appeal.

Note:Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NG 1012 OF 1998

BETWEEN:

WT PARTNERSHIP (AUST) PTY LTD and
WTP (HONG KONG) LTD
Appellants

AND:

GRAHEME SHELDRICK
Respondent

JUDGES:

LEE, BRANSON AND MARSHALL JJ

DATE:

25 JUNE 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. The appellants (“WTP (Aust)”, “WTP (Hong Kong)”), appeal from an order of a judge of this…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sheldrick 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
[1999] FCA 843
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd v Sheldrick is a case that came before the court to address a dispute between a company and an individual over an alleged breach of contract. The plaintiff, WT Partnership (Aust) Pty Ltd, sought damages from the defendant, Sheldrick, for an alleged breach of a contract which the plaintiff claimed entitled them to receive certain payments. The case was initially heard in a lower court before being appealed to a higher court, where both parties lodged appeals against the outcomes of the lower court decision.

The legal issues central to this appeal revolved around the interpretation of the contractual terms and the validity of the claims made by both parties. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the contract in question was binding and enforceable, and if so, whether the defendant had breached its terms. Additionally, the court was required to ascertain the precise amount of damages owed, if any, by either party to the other.

The court's reasoning focused on the interpretation of the contract and the evidence presented regarding the alleged breach. It was determined that the contract was valid and enforceable, but that the terms were not as clear as initially presented. The court found that the defendant had indeed breached the contract, but also that the plaintiff had not fully substantiated the extent of their damages. The court adjusted the amount of damages awarded to reflect a more accurate calculation based on the evidence presented. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were allowed, and the amount of the judgment was varied accordingly.

In summary, the court allowed both the appeal and cross-appeal, varying the amount of the judgment to $245,240. The court did not make any order regarding the costs of the appeal or cross-appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal and cross-appeal be allowed and the amount of the judgment be varied from $253,000 to $245,240.

2. There be no order as to costs of the appeal or cross-appeal.

Note:

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.