Xia v Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 79 min read

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Xia v Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd [2017] NSWDC 161
Hearing dates: 16, 17, 18, 21, 22 November 2016; 19 December 2016; 7 and 22 February 2017; 1 March 2017 (written submissions)
Date of orders: 30 June 2017
Decision date: 30 June 2017
Jurisdiction:Civil
Before: Gibson DCJ
Decision:

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.
(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the mathematically agreed total for the plaintiff’s judgment sum.
(3) Judgment for the defendant/cross-claimant on the cross-claim in the sum of $7,195.27 plus interest to be calculated.
(4) Defendant/cross-claimant pay plaintiff/cross-defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
(5) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.
(6) Exhibits retained until further order.

Catchwords: CONTRACT – claim by former employee for short payment of salary, holiday leave, commission, profit share and reimbursement of expenses from employer – cross claim for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty – long personal and professional relationship between plaintiff and the managing director of the company – credit issues – quantum
Legislation Cited: Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law (Cth), s 18
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 26, 27, 90, 548
Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth)
Superannuation Guarantee Charge Act 1992 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Akmeemana v Murray [2009] NSWSC 979
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
Bebonis v Angelos (2003) 56 NSWLR 127
Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541
Carlson & Fluvium [2012] FAMCA 32
Chahal Group Pty Ltd & Anor v 7-Eleven Stores Pty Ltd [2017] NSWSC 532
Christmas v Nicol Bros Pty Ltd (1941) 41 NSWSR 317
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker [2013] FCAFC 83
Cubillo v Commonwealth of Australia (No 2) (2000) 103 FCR 1
Dhaildeal v Pade [2003] NSWCA 16
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118
Harpham v Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia [2016] FCA 1473
Hodgson v Amcor Ltd [2012] VSC 94; (2012) 264 FLR 1
Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd v Macquarie Equity Capital Market Ltd (2008) 73 NSWLR 653
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [2000] NSWSC 570
McGlen-McLeod v Galloway [2012] NSWCA 368
Moneywood Pty Ltd v Salamon Nominees Pty Ltd (2001) 202 CLR 351
O’Halloran v R T Thomas & Family Pty Ltd (1998) 45 NSWLR 262
Pilkington v Wood [1953] Ch 770 at 777
Ramsey v Annesley College [2013] SASC 72
Russell v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church (2008) 72 NSWLR 559
Saler v Danell [2017] FAMCA 161
Shaeffer v Jacobs [2011] FAMFC 119
State Rail Authority of New South Wales v Earthline Constructions Pty Ltd (in liq) (1999) 160 ALR 588
Thornton v Telegraph Media Group Ltd [2011] EWHC 1884 (QB)
Walker v Citigroup Global Markets Australia Pty Limited [2006] FCAFC 101
Watson…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Xia v Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd 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
[2017] NSWDC 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Xia v Pacific Shoji Pty Ltd, the plaintiff, a former employee, brought a claim against the defendant employer for underpayment of salary, holiday leave, commission, profit share, and reimbursement of expenses. The defendant filed a cross-claim alleging breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by the plaintiff. The matter was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the plaintiff was owed the amounts claimed and, if so, the quantum of the amounts due. Additionally, the court had to consider the defendant’s cross-claim for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty and assess whether the plaintiff had engaged in conduct that warranted the defendant’s cross-claim being upheld. The court also needed to examine the credit issues presented by both parties.

The court found that the plaintiff was owed the amounts claimed, with the total judgment sum mathematically agreed upon by the parties. The court allowed the defendant’s cross-claim for breach of contract, awarding $7,195.27 plus interest, but dismissed the claim for breach of fiduciary duty. The court ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs of the proceedings. The court also granted liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs and retained the exhibits until further order.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Judgment for the plaintiff.

(2) Liberty to the parties to bring in Short Minutes of Order reflecting the mathematically agreed total for the plaintiff’s judgment sum.

(3) Judgment for the defendant/cross-claimant on the cross-claim in the sum of $7,195.27 plus interest to be calculated.

(4) Defendant/cross-claimant pay plaintiff/cross-defendant’s costs of the proceedings.

(5) Liberty to apply in relation to interest and costs.

(6) Exhibits retained until further order.

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.