Saridas v Papuan Oil Search Ltd [2022] NSWSC 825

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Saridas v Papuan Oil Search Ltd [2022] NSWSC 825 Hearing dates: 10 June 2022 Date of orders: 22 June 2022 Decision date: 22 June 2022 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Schmidt AJ Decision: 1. The conclusions which I have reached and the other difficulties with the proposed further amended statement of claim, which the parties have agreed need to be discussed further, precludes leave to file the proposed pleading being granted. 2. The claims presently advanced at pars 5-15 and 26 of the amended statement of claim must be dismissed. 3. The parties are directed to confer on the outstanding objections to the further amended statement of claim, the motion seeking to have the notice to produce set aside and costs, in light of the conclusions which I have reached. 4. The parties should also confer about the orders which should be made to reflect my conclusions and the further directions and orders which should now be given as to the preparation of the matter for hearing. The proposed orders and directions should then be filed. 5. The usual order is an order that Ms Saridas must bear Oil Search's costs of the motion, it having been largely successful on the case it advanced. In the event of any disagreement, the parties should file short written submissions as to the costs orders they seek. Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE — Originating process — where it is claimed parts of amended statement of claim should be struck out under r 13.4 or dismissed under r 14.28 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) — whether there is a high degree of certainty about ultimate outcome of proceedings — role of consideration of the just, quick and cheap resolution of the real issues in the proceedings under Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 CONTRACTS — where it is claimed employment contract contains implied terms which were breached resulting in employee's constructive dismissal – claim bound to fail CONTRACTS — construction — deed of release — whether deed contained implied term — claim legally untenable where implied term contrary to express terms CONTRACTS — whether deed void ab initio as the result of breach — claim legally untenable — deed remains binding and precludes claims for damages for breach of contract and claimed breaches of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Pt 9.4AAA during course of employment CONTRACTS — construction — deed of release — that deed did not apply to breaches of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Pt 9.4AAA after termination of employment arguable EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW — contract of employment — repudiation — whether repudiation accepted — employment ended by resignation on payments made by employer in accordance with deed Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56 Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), Pt 9.4AAA, ss 1317AD, 1317ADA, 1317AE, 1317AAA Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss 789FD, 789FF Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 13.4, 14.28, 42.1 Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (NSW), s 19 Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT), s 19 Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW) Cases Cited: Agar v Hyde (2000) 201 CLR 552; [2000] HCA 41 Ankar Pty Ltd v National Westminster Finance (Australia) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549; [1987] HCA 15 Bailey v New South Wales Medical Defence Union Ltd (1995) 184 CLR 399; [1995] HCA 28 Baltic Shipping Company v Dillon (1993)176 CLR 344; [1993] HCA 4 Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority of New South Wales (2006) 226 CLR 256; [2006] HCA 27 Bott v Carter [2012] NSWCA 89 Bowker v DP World Melbourne Ltd [2014] FWCFB 9227; 246 IR 138 Butt v McDonald (1896) 7 QLJ 68 Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd (1995) 185 CLR 410; [1995] HCA 24 Codelfa Construction Pty Ltd v State Rail Authority of NSW (1982) 149 CLR 337; [1982] HCA 24 Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Barker (2014) 253 CLR 169; [2014] HCA 32 Doyle's Farm Produce Pty Ltd v Murray Darling Basin Authority (No 2) (2021) NSWLR 41; [2021] NSWCA 246 Electricity Generation Corporation t/as Verve Energy v Woodside Energy Ltd (2014) 251 CLR 640; [2014] HCA 7 General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) (1964) 112 CLR 125; [1964] HCA 69 Koompahtoo Local Aboriginal Land Council v Sanpine Pty Limited (2007) 233 CLR 115; [2007] HCA 61 Kyrwood v Drinkwater [2000] NSWCA 126 Laurinda Pty Ltd v Capalaba Park Shopping Centre Pty Ltd (1989) 166 CLR 623; [1989] HCA 23 McDonald v Dennys Lascelles Ltd (1933) 48 CLR 457; [1933] HCA 25 Murray Darling Basin Authority v Doyle's Farm Produce Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 191 Newey v Westpac Banking Corporation [2014] NSWCA 319 Purcell v Tullett Prebon (Australia) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWCA 150 R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd; Ex parte Halliday; Ex parte Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601; [1938] HCA 44 Russell v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Archdiocese of Sydney (2008) 72 NSWLR 559; [2008] NSWCA 217 Shaw v State of New South Wales [2012] NSWCA 102 Southern Han Breakfast Point Pty Ltd (in liq) v Lewence Construction Pty Ltd (2016) 260 CLR 340; [2016] HCA 52 Spencer v The Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28 Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Pty Ltd (1986) 160 CLR 16; [1986] HCA 1 Willmott Growers Group Inc v Wilmott Forests Ltd (Receivers and Managers appointed) (in liq) (2013) 251 CLR 592; [2013] HCA 51 Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd (2019) 266 CLR 428; [2019] HCA 2 WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato (2021) 95 ALJR 681; [2021] HCA 23 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Aynet Saridas (Plaintiff) Papuan Oil Search Ltd (Defendant) Representation: Counsel: D Hooke SC (Plaintiff) D O'Dowd (Plaintiff) I Neil SC (Defendant) B Rauf (Defendant)