Adami v Maison de Luxe Limited [1924] HCA 45

OF AUSTRALIA. 143

{HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA.)

ADAMI Z P : P z ; ; ij APPELLANT ; Pantie, AND MAISON DE LUXE LIMITED eal RESPONDENT. DEFENDANT.

ON APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA.

Employer and Kmployee—Wrongful dismissal—Disobedience of lawful order of H.C. or A

employer—Refusal to be bound by contract—Direction to jury. 1924. 'The respondent company, which was the proprietor of a hall which it used yoo ae

for dances and other entertainments, employed the appellant as its hall manager (,. 99. 94 for the term of three years from the opening of business at the hall. By the" agreement between the parties it was agreed that the appellant should have SypNey, the engagement and full control of all the staff of the company attached to Nov. 19. any hall of which the company might be the owner or lessee and the general —§ —— supervision of the business carried on by the company in connection therewith, Uaven "Duity' subject always to the board of directors of the company. Shortly after *t Starke 4). business at the hall had begun, the board of directors of the company resolved to hold dances in the hall on Saturday afternoons from 2.30 p.m. to 5 p.m., and instructed the appellant to be on duty at the hall during those hours. 'The appellant, who was a bookmaker and interested in a business which required his attention on Saturday afternoons, definitely refused to attend the hall on those afternoons. The directors of the company thereupon dismissed the appellant. In an action by the appellant for wrongful dismissal which was heard before a jury,

Held, that the conduct of the appellant amounted to a distinct refusal by him to be bound by the terms of the contract, which refusal was inconsistent with the continuance of the employment, and, there being no evidence upon which a jury could reasonably find otherwise, the jury should, as a matter of law, have been directed to find for the respondent company.