Richards v Byrnecut Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 354

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Richards v Byrnecut Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 354 Citation: Richards v Byrnecut Australia Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 354

Parties: CRAIG RICHARDS v BYRNECUT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 129 142 516)

File number(s): VID 133 of 2009

Judge: RYAN J

Date of judgment: 13 April 2011

Dates of hearing: 27 and 28 April 2010

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 35

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr A McDonald

Solicitor for the Applicant: McDonald Murholme

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Dalton

Solicitor for the Respondent: DLA Phillips Fox

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 133 of 2009

BETWEEN: CRAIG RICHARDS

Applicant

AND: BYRNECUT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 129 142 516)

Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J DATE OF ORDER: 13 april 2011 WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application, including any reserved costs, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules. The text of entered orders can be located using Federal Law Search on the Court's website.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION VID 133 of 2009

BETWEEN: CRAIG RICHARDS

Applicant

AND: BYRNECUT AUSTRALIA PTY LTD (ACN 129 142 516)

Respondent

JUDGE: RYAN J DATE: 13 april 2011 PLACE: MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant in these proceedings is Mr Craig Richards ("Richards"), a former employee of the respondent Byrnecut Australia Pty Ltd ("Byrnecut"). Byrnecut is a mining contractor which undertakes production and development mining for a number of different mine operators, and conducts operations throughout Australia and overseas. In essence, Richards claims that his employment contract with Brynecut which was signed on 1 July 2008 and subsequently terminated on 13 October 2008 was, to enure, for a fixed term of two years with the potential for that term to be extended for another year. In Richards' submission, Brynecut's premature termination of his employment was a breach of contract that inflicted on Richards the loss of his salary for the remainder of the contract term. He quantifies that loss as being between $210,000 and $220,000. Byrnecut denies that the termination of Richards' employment was in breach of contract as, in its submission, the evidence does not support a finding that there was any implied or express term of the contract of employment that it was to enure for any fixed period of time.