MIDYA v SAGRANI [1999] NSWCA 187

New South Wales Court of Appeal CITATION : MIDYA v SAGRANI [1999] NSWCA 187 FILE NUMBER(S) : CA 40768/98 HEARING DATE(S) : 28 May 1999 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 May 1999

SATYENDRA NATH MIDYA PARTIES : v RITA SAGRANI JUDGMENT OF : Mason P at 15; Handley JA at 1; Giles JA at 16

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : DC 6460/97 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Williams ADCJ

COUNSEL : P Menzies QC/M Robinson (Appellant) J Glisson QC/N Gye (Respondent) SOLICITORS : Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Appellant) Corby Levingston (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : APPEAL - whether new point of law could be raised on appeal; EMPLOYMENT - reasonable remuneration for services rendered - Industrial Relations Act 1996 - ss 117-8 - whether deduction for board and lodging permissible; INDUSTRIAL LAW - Industrial Relations Act - whether employer entitled to deduct value of board and lodging from remuneration ACTS CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 CASES CITED: Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR 418 Way v Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759 DECISION : Orders made

THE SUPREME COURT

OF NEW SOUTH WALES

COURT OF APPEAL

CA 40768/98 DC 6460/97 MASON P HANDLEY JA GILES JA

Friday 28 May 1999 SATYENDRA NATH MIDYA v RITA SAGRANI APPEAL - whether new point of law could be raised on appeal EMPLOYMENT - reasonable remuneration for services rendered - Industrial Relations Act 1996 - ss 117-8 - whether deduction for board and lodging permissible INDUSTRIAL LAW - Industrial Relations Act - whether employer entitled to deduct value of board and lodging from remuneration The appellant, an Indian national, had been brought to Australia by the respondent in May 1994 and lived and worked in her home until May 1997. He had also worked in a warehouse for a company she controlled. There was a falling out and the appellant sought reasonable remuneration for his services. The trial Judge found for the appellant and entered judgment for $21,000 having allowed a deduction for board and lodging at $210 per week. The appellant claimed the trial Judge erred in allowing $210 per week and claimed that under ss 117 and 118 of the Industrial Relations Act 1966 the deduction should not have been made. The points based on the Act were not raised at the trial. HELD , dismissing the appeal: A party is bound by the conduct of his case at the trial and can only raise a new question of law on appeal in limited circumstances. The issues under ss 117 and 118 did not raise pure questions of law, and they could not be taken for the first time on appeal. Coulton v Holcombe (1986) 162 CLR 1 and Suttor v Gundowda Pty Ltd (1950) 81 CLR applied. ORDERS