Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd: High Court on Gambling Law

Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25; (2013) 250 CLR 392; 87 ALJR 708; 298 ALR 35

High Court of Australia
The bench of judges: French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Bell, Gageler and Keane JJ
Date of judgment: 5 June 2013
Area of law: Equity – Unconscionable conduct

Case Overview (Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd)

The case of Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd [2013] HCA 25 dealt with claims of unconscionable conduct under equitable principles. The appellant, Harry Kakavas, a high-stakes gambler with a pathological gambling disorder, argued that Crown Melbourne Ltd exploited his gambling addiction for financial gain. He sought relief for his losses totalling $20.5 million, incurred over 30 visits to the casino between 2005 and 2006.

Key Issues

1. Special Disability: Kakavas claimed his gambling addiction constituted a special disability, making him vulnerable to exploitation.

2. Unconscionable Conduct: He alleged that Crown knowingly took advantage of his addiction by incentivizing his gambling through perks like private jets and rebates.

Court Decisions in Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Ltd

Trial and Appeals

The lower courts dismissed Kakavas’ claims, ruling that his gambling addiction did not amount to a special disadvantage sufficient to warrant equitable relief. Crown’s actions were deemed part of its normal business operations.

High Court Decision

1. The High Court upheld the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that Kakavas was capable of making rational decisions and negotiating terms, indicating no substantial inequality in bargaining power.

2. It ruled that a “special disadvantage” must impair an individual’s ability to act in their best interests across contexts, not just in isolated circumstances. Kakavas’ successful business activities and stable personal life undermined his claim of such a disadvantage.

3. The Court rejected the notion that Crown’s conduct was unconscionable, reasoning that Kakavas’ losses arose from his decisions rather than any exploitation.

Broader Implications

The judgment narrowed the application of equitable relief for unconscionable conduct, limiting it primarily to cases involving profound disabilities impacting general life functions.

Critics argue the decision sets a precedent that wealthier individuals, regardless of disabilities in specific contexts (e.g., gambling addiction), are less likely to qualify for equitable protection.

It effectively closed the door on similar claims by problem gamblers, reinforcing the legality of casinos’ practices as business norms.

Conclusion

This case illustrates a judicial reluctance to intervene in commercial gambling transactions and a tightening of the doctrine of unconscionable conduct.

References:

https://www8.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLRev/2013/8.pdf

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022]: A Detailed Case Summary

Blomley v Ryan (1956): A Case Summary

MORE FROM EQUITY & TRUSTS:

Yerkey v Jones [1939]: Guarantees & Marriage

Yerkey v Jones [1939] HCA 3; (1939) 63 CLR 649

Decision Date: 06 March 1939
High Court of Australia
Husband and Wife – Confidential relations – Guarantee-Equitable relief

The case Yerkey v Jones from the Supreme Court of South Australia addresses issues of husband-wife relationships, guarantees, and equitable relief, specifically under circumstances where a wife becomes surety for her husband’s debt. Here is a detailed summary:

Background

Parties Involved: John George Yerkey and his wife Mary Penelope Yerkey (plaintiffs) filed a claim against Florence May Blanche Jones and her husband, Estyn Jones (defendants).

Subject Property: The dispute involved a property in Payneham sold by the Yerkeys to Estyn Jones, with payment conditions including a second mortgage secured by Florence’s Walkerville property.

Key Facts (Yerkey v Jones)

1. Property Sale and Payment Structure:

The purchase price for the Payneham property was £3,500. Payment terms included a nominal deposit, £200 at the end of two years, and £3,300 at the end of three years. Of the final payment, £1,000 was secured by a second mortgage on Florence’s Walkerville property, which already had a first mortgage of £700.

2. Mrs. Jones’s Role:

Florence Jones was asked by her husband to execute the second mortgage for £1,000, which she agreed to after her husband’s persuasion. She claimed she did not fully comprehend the legal implications of the guarantee, particularly her personal liability beyond the property.

3. Execution of Documents:

On 21 August 1936, the couple met the Yerkeys and their solicitors to execute the sale and mortgage documents. At the solicitors’ office, all necessary documents were signed. While the solicitor explained the terms, Florence later contended that she signed under pressure and without adequate understanding.

4. Default and Litigation:

The Joneses defaulted on interest payments, and the Yerkeys initiated a claim to recover the secured amount. Florence defended on grounds of undue influence, misrepresentation, and lack of understanding.

Court Proceedings and Issues in Yerkey v Jones

Trial Court:

Justice Napier ruled in favour of Florence, holding that she signed under undue influence and misunderstanding of her obligations. The mortgage was deemed unenforceable against her.

Appeal:

The High Court of Australia reversed the trial court’s decision, concluding:

The relationship of husband and wife does not inherently presume undue influence.
The solicitor’s explanation was sufficient to establish Florence’s understanding of her obligations.
The Yerkeys acted in good faith and relied on reasonable legal procedures.

Principles Discussed

Undue Influence:

The relationship between husband and wife, while close, does not automatically lead to a presumption of undue influence. Specific proof of overbearing the will of the wife is required.

Equitable Relief for Misrepresentation:

Relief can be granted if a party is misled into signing a document without understanding its material implications. However, no misrepresentation by the Yerkeys was found.

Role of Creditors:

Creditors relying on guarantees obtained through spouses must ensure the guarantor comprehends their liabilities. In this case, the court found that reasonable care was taken.

Responsibility of Solicitors:

Solicitors should adequately explain contractual obligations. Here, the solicitor’s efforts were deemed appropriate, negating Florence’s claim of misunderstanding.

Conclusion

The High Court reinstated the plaintiffs’ claim, holding both Estyn and Florence Jones liable for the debt. The decision highlighted the balance between protecting individuals in close relationships and upholding valid contractual agreements entered knowingly.

References:

https://jade.io/article/64113

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Summergreene v Parker [1950] HCA 13: Contract Not Concluded

Woodar Investment Development Ltd v Wimpey Construction UK Ltd [1980]

MORE FROM EQUITY & TRUSTS:

Elisha v Vision Australia Limited: HCA Rules on Psychiatric Harm

Elisha v Vision Australia Limited [2024] HCA 50

Judgment date: 11 December 2024
High Court of Australia
The bench of judges: Gageler CJ; Gordon, Edelman, Steward, Gleeson, Jagot and Beech-Jones JJ
Damages; Breach of contract; Scope of contractual duty; Remoteness

The case Elisha v Vision Australia Limited [2024] HCA 50 revolves around employment law, focusing on breach of contract and negligence claims following the dismissal of the appellant, Mr. Adam Elisha, from his role at Vision Australia Limited. Given below is a summary of the facts and judgment.

Facts and Case Background (Elisha v Vision Australia Limited)

Mr. Elisha was employed by Vision Australia as an adaptive technology consultant under a 2006 employment contract. The contract made reference to compliance with regulatory requirements and the employer’s policies and procedures.

In March 2015, an incident occurred at a hotel during work-related travel where Mr. Elisha was accused of aggressive behaviour toward hotel staff. Vision Australia’s disciplinary process culminated in a “stand down letter” and subsequent termination of employment, alleging misconduct based on prior aggressive behaviour, which had not been formally raised or substantiated.

The process was described as a “sham” by the primary judge. Allegations of prior aggression were relied upon without informing Mr. Elisha or allowing him to respond. The decision-makers had limited direct interaction with Mr. Elisha and relied on vague and unsupported claims.

Following his dismissal, Mr. Elisha was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and adjustment disorder. Evidence suggested these were directly tied to the unfair dismissal process.

Legal Proceedings

Mr. Elisha initiated legal action claiming:

• Breach of contract due to non-compliance with the disciplinary procedures.

• Negligence for failing to provide a safe system of investigation and decision-making.

The primary judge awarded damages for breach of contract but dismissed the negligence claim.

The Court of Appeal overturned the primary judgment, finding that psychiatric injury damages were too remote and could not be recovered for breach of contract. It also ruled out negligence claims.

High Court Judgment (Elisha v Vision Australia Limited)

The High Court upheld that Vision Australia’s disciplinary policies were incorporated into Mr. Elisha’s employment contract. The breach of these policies, particularly the failure to provide procedural fairness, caused Mr. Elisha’s psychiatric injury.

The injury was not too remote as psychiatric harm was a foreseeable consequence of a flawed dismissal process.

The court deemed it unnecessary to decide whether a tortious duty of care existed (negligence), given the success of the contractual claim.

The High Court reinstated the primary judge’s decision to award damages for breach of contract, emphasizing the seriousness of the procedural breaches. The appeal was allowed, and the orders of the Court of Appeal were set aside.

Significance

This case suggests that procedural fairness in employment dismissals is really important and clarifies the scope of recoverable damages for breach of contract in such contexts. It also throws light on the limits of negligence claims in employment law. The Court declined to expand the duty of care owed by employers to cover the disciplinary process, citing potential incoherence with employment law and existing statutory regimes.

Quotes from the case

“The disciplinary process conducted by Vision Australia was found to breach cl 47.5 of the Vision EA and the 2015 Disciplinary Procedure, both of which were held to have been incorporated into the 2006 Contract.” (Primary judge O’Meara J)

“The disciplinary process conducted by Vision Australia was found to breach … the 2015 Disciplinary Procedure … If a proper process had been undertaken, a proper consideration of the hotel incident would have led to the conclusion that the events probably involved no element of harassment or bullying … Mr Elisha would not have developed the serious psychiatric injury from which he suffers.” (Primary judge O’Meara J)

“It was reasonable to expect that Mr Elisha would have been so distressed by the manner in which Vision Australia breached the 2006 Contract and by the consequences of the breach for him, including his dismissal for alleged misconduct from the employment that he had held for nearly a decade, that there was a serious possibility that Mr Elisha would suffer a serious psychiatric injury.” (Gageler CJ, Gordon, Edelman, Gleeson, and Beech-Jones JJ)

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2024/50.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco – Key Gig Work Case

Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

MORE FROM LABOUR LAW:

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022]: Australian Law

ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2; (2022) 275 CLR 254; 96 ALJR 144; 398 ALR 603; 312 IR 74

High Court of Australia
Judgment date: 9 February 2022
Kiefel CJ, Gageler, Keane, Gordon, Edelman, Steward and Gleeson JJ.
Nature of employment relationship – Employee or independent contractor

The case ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek [2022] HCA 2 deals with the determination of whether two former truck drivers, Martin Jamsek and another respondent, were employees or independent contractors of ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd.

Case Background (ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek)

The respondents worked as truck drivers for the appellant’s predecessors since 1977. In 1986, they were required to purchase their own trucks and entered into contracts with the company through partnerships formed with their spouses. They invoiced the company for services and declared partnership income.

In 2017, after the termination of their contracts, the respondents sought statutory entitlements, claiming they were employees under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), the Superannuation Guarantee (Administration) Act 1992 (Cth), and the Long Service Leave Act 1955 (NSW).

Primary Legal Question

Whether the respondents, under the changed contractual arrangements, were employees or independent contractors.

Court History

The primary judge ruled that they were independent contractors.

The Full Court of the Federal Court reversed this decision, finding them to be employees.

The High Court ultimately reinstated the view that they were independent contractors, allowing the appeal by ZG Operations.

High Court’s Rationale (ZG Operations Australia Pty Ltd v Jamsek)

The High Court emphasized the significance of the written contracts governing the relationships between the company and the partnerships. The respondents were found to have acted as partners in a business providing delivery services, rather than as employees. The partnerships owned and bore the operational risks of the trucks, further supporting the conclusion of independence. Disparities in bargaining power and other contextual factors, while relevant, were insufficient to alter the contractual character of the relationship.

In the words of KIEFEL CJ, KEANE AND EDELMAN JJ. –

“…the character of the relationship between the parties in this case was to be determined by reference to the rights and duties created by the written agreement which comprehensively regulated that relationship.”

“…the reality of the situation is that the partnerships, and not the respondents individually, owned and operated the trucks. The partnerships contracted with the company and invoiced the company for delivery services provided by the operation of the trucks. The partnerships earned income from the company, incurred expenses associated with the ownership and operation of the trucks, and took advantage of tax benefits of the structure. It is not possible to square the contention that the respondents were not conducting a business of their own as partners with the circumstance that, for many years, they enjoyed the advantages of splitting the income generated by the business conducted by the partnerships with their fellow partners.”

Significance of the case

The decision clarifies that the characterization of a worker’s relationship with a company must primarily derive from the written contractual terms unless claims like sham arrangements or unconscionable conduct are made. It underscores the boundaries of employee vs. contractor distinctions in the context of modern labour arrangements.

List of references:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2022/2.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco – Key Gig Work Case

Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

MORE FROM LABOUR LAW:

Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022]: A Detailed Case Summary

Case Name: Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd

Citation: [2022] HCA 6; (2022) 276 CLR 1; 96 ALJR 271; 399 ALR 409
Judges: Kiefel CJ, Keane, Gordon, Steward, and Gleeson JJ
Date of Judgment: 16 March 2022
Area of Law: Equity – Unconscionable Conduct
Court: High Court of Australia

Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd [2022] HCA 6 is a decision by the High Court of Australia regarding unconscionable conduct in asset-based lending. Given below is a summary of the case.

Appellant: Jeffrey William Stubbings

Respondents: Jams 2 Pty Ltd and others

Case Background (Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd)

The appellant, Jeffrey William Stubbings, guaranteed loans made by the respondents (Jams 2 Pty Ltd and others). The appellant was unemployed, had no income, and owned properties used as a loan security. The loans, totalling over $1 million, were made to a shell company controlled by the appellant (Victorian Boat Clinic Pty Ltd), secured by mortgages on the appellant’s properties.

The respondents used an intermediary and a legal firm to arrange the loans. The respondents’ agent, AJ Lawyers, and intermediary (Mr. Zourkas) avoided direct interactions with borrowers to minimize liability and knowledge of their financial vulnerability.

The appellant received legal and financial certificates allegedly verifying his understanding of the loan risks, though these were disputed as independent.

The lending system was asset-based, relying solely on collateral value, with no assessment of the borrower’s repayment capacity.

The appellant defaulted shortly after the loan initiation, leading the respondents to enforce mortgage rights.

Legal Issue

The appellant alleged unconscionable conduct, arguing the respondents exploited his financial vulnerability and lack of understanding.

The High Court examined whether the respondent’s system of asset-based lending exploited the appellant’s vulnerability and amounted to unconscionable conduct.

High Court Decision (Stubbings v Jams 2 Pty Ltd)

The appeal was allowed, overturning the Victorian Court of Appeal’s decision. The High Court reinstated the primary judge’s findings.

The appellant was at a significant disadvantage due to his financial illiteracy, lack of income, and inability to understand the risks of the loan transaction. The appellant’s special disadvantage was apparent, and the respondents, through their agent, knew or ought to have known the risks posed to the appellant. But their deliberate ignorance of the appellant’s circumstances constituted exploitation.

The court determined that the system of conduct employed by the respondents constituted unconscionable behaviour under equity and statutory law, specifically Section 12CB of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth).

The Court held that the respondents exploited the appellant’s disadvantage to profit from his equity in the properties, which was unconscionable.

The certificates of advice were deemed inadequate to negate the unconscionable nature of the transactions, as they did not provide true independence or transparency. The solicitor and accountant providing the “independent advice” (Mr. Kiatos and Mr. Topalides) were introduced by the intermediary (Mr. Zourkas), raising questions about their impartiality.

Orders

The mortgages were discharged, and the loans declared unenforceable.

Costs were awarded against the respondents.

Significance

The case underscores the High Court’s commitment to ensuring fairness and preventing exploitation in financial dealings, particularly where systemic practices target vulnerable individuals.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2022/6.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Blomley v Ryan (1956): A Case Summary

Commercial Bank of Australia v Amadio (1983): A Summary

MORE FROM EQUITY & TRUSTS:

ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd: Privacy, Trespass & Media Law

Case Name: Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

Citation: [2001] HCA 63; 208 CLR 199; 185 ALR 1; 76 ALJR 1
Date of Decision: 15 November 2001
Court: High Court of Australia
Judges: Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, Gummow, Kirby, Hayne, and Callinan JJ
Area of law: Tort of privacy, freedom of speech, and equitable remedies

Case Overview

The case involves the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) and Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd. It was heard in the High Court of Australia on 15 November 2001.

The main legal question revolves around whether the ABC could be restrained from broadcasting a video that showed footage of possum processing at Lenah Game Meats’ facility. The footage was obtained illegally by trespassers who secretly recorded the operations and later provided the tape to ABC.

Background Facts (ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd)

Lenah Game Meats operated a possum processing facility.

Unidentified trespassers broke into the facility, installed hidden cameras, and filmed the possum processing operations without Lenah’s consent.

The video was handed over to Animal Liberation Limited, an animal rights organization, which later passed it to the ABC.

ABC intended to broadcast the footage on its program, the “7.30 Report.”

Lenah Game Meats sought an injunction to prevent ABC from airing the footage, arguing that it would cause financial harm to their business.

Legal Issues

The case primarily considered whether the court could grant an injunction to prevent ABC from broadcasting the footage. The various legal issues included:

1. Equity & Interlocutory Injunctions:

Whether Lenah had a serious legal claim that justified the interlocutory injunction (a temporary order before a final decision). The Supreme Court of Tasmania had initially denied the injunction, but the Full Court later granted it. ABC appealed to the High Court, arguing that Lenah had no legal right to prevent the broadcast.

2. Tort of Privacy:

The case raised the question whether Australian law recognizes a “right to privacy” and, if so, whether it applies to corporations. The court examined whether privacy laws should be extended to companies.

3. Freedom of Speech & Public Interest:

ABC argued that preventing the broadcast would infringe upon freedom of speech and the public’s right to know. The implied freedom of political communication under the Australian Constitution was also considered.

4. Trespass & Use of Illegally Obtained Material:

The footage was obtained through illegal trespassing, but ABC itself did not participate in the trespass. The question arose whether ABC could be restrained from using material that was unlawfully obtained by a third party.

High Court’s Decision in ABC v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd

The High Court ruled in favour of ABC, setting aside the Full Court’s injunction. The key findings were:

1. Lack of a Strong Legal Claim by Lenah:

Lenah did not have an equitable or legal right that justified an injunction. There was no confidential information involved—the processing of possums was a licensed and regulated activity.

Gleeson CJ said –

“It is not suggested that the operations that were filmed were secret, or that requirements of confidentiality were imposed upon people who might see the operations. The abattoir is, no doubt, regularly visited by inspectors, and seen by other visitors who come to the premises for business or private reasons. The fact that the operations are required to be, and are, licensed by a public authority, suggests that information about the nature of those operations is not confidential.”

2. No Established Right to Privacy for Corporations:

The court did not recognize a general tort of privacy in Australia. Even if such a right existed, corporations do not have personal privacy rights like individuals.

3. Public Interest Considerations:

The public interest in broadcasting the footage outweighed Lenah’s claims. Freedom of speech and media should not be restricted unless there was a strong legal basis.

Gleeson CJ said –

“If the respondent cannot demonstrate that there is at least a serious question as to whether the appellant is free to keep the video and to use it as it thinks fit, how could conscience require or justify temporary restraint upon the use of the video by the appellant?”

4. Illegally Obtained Material:

The fact that the footage was obtained by trespassing did not automatically mean ABC should be restrained from using it. Courts should be cautious in blocking media publications just because material was obtained unlawfully.

Gleeson CJ said –

“The appellant is in the business of broadcasting. In the ordinary course of its business, it publishes information obtained from many sources, thereby contributing to the flow of information available to the public. The sources from which that information may come, directly or indirectly, cover a wide range of behaviour; some of it impeccable, some of it reprehensible, and all intermediate degrees. If the appellant, without itself being complicit in impropriety or illegality, obtains information which it regards as newsworthy, informative, or entertaining, why should it not publish?”

Conclusion

The High Court allowed the appeal, meaning ABC was permitted to broadcast the footage.

The decision reaffirmed the importance of freedom of the press and limited the ability of corporations to claim privacy rights. The case remains a key precedent in Australian law regarding privacy, media rights, and equitable remedies.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2001/63.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Magill v Magill [2006] HCA 51: – Can Paternity Lies Be Tort?

Collins v Wilcock [1984] 1 WLR 1172: Self-Defence and Battery

MORE FROM TORT LAW:

Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco – Key Gig Work Case

Case name & citation: Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco [2022] FWCFB 156

Court: Fair Work Commission – Full Bench
Date of Decision: 17 August 2022
Judges: Vice President Hatcher, Vice President Catanzariti, Deputy President Cross
Areas of Law: Employment Status; Worker Classification; Unfair Dismissal

Background of the Case (Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco)

Diego Franco worked as a delivery rider for Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd from April 2017 to April 2020. His work arrangement was governed by a “supplier agreement,” which was revised multiple times.

In April 2020, Deliveroo identified Mr. Franco as having delayed delivery times. On April 23, 2020, Deliveroo emailed him stating he had failed to deliver orders on time, breaching his agreement. On April 30, 2020, Deliveroo disabled his access to the Rider App, effectively terminating his engagement.

Franco filed an unfair dismissal claim with the Fair Work Commission (FWC), which ruled in his favour.

Initial Fair Work Commission Ruling (May 18, 2021)

Commissioner Cambridge determined that Franco was an employee of Deliveroo, not an independent contractor. His dismissal was unfair, as it was harsh, unjust, and unreasonable. He was not given clear expectations regarding delivery times. Further, he was not given an opportunity to respond before being terminated. He should be reinstated with lost wages restored.

Deliveroo’s Appeal

Deliveroo challenged the decision, arguing Mr. Franco was a contractor, not an employee. They contended the Commissioner had misapplied the legal test for employment classification. The dismissal had a valid reason (poor delivery performance) and proper procedural fairness was followed.

Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission Decision (August 17, 2022)

The Full Bench reviewed the appeal in light of new High Court precedents in Personnel Contracting and Jamsek, which emphasized that employment relationships should be determined primarily by contract terms. The contract’s written terms are the deciding factors, rather than the actual working relationship.

Reassessment of Employment Status:

The Full Bench ruled that Franco was not an employee but an independent contractor. It based this on the terms of the 2019 supplier agreement, which:

Did not establish an employer-employee relationship.
Allowed Franco to choose when and where to work.
Permitted him to work for competitors simultaneously. (He also worked for competitors Uber Eats and DoorDash.)
Gave him control over delivery routes and equipment.
Allowed him to delegate work to others.

Ignorance of Actual Working Relationship:

Despite evidence that Deliveroo exercised significant control over Franco’s work in practice—through its algorithm, performance monitoring, and branding—the court ruled against considering these real-world conditions. Instead, it focused solely on the written contract.

Jurisdictional Error in Original Decision:

Since Franco was found to be a contractor, he was not protected from unfair dismissal under the Fair Work Act 2009. This rendered the original FWC decision invalid.

The Full Bench admitted that Deliveroo treated Franco unfairly, but it stated that it had no jurisdiction to remedy the unfairness due to his independent contractor status.

Here is an excerpt from the judgment

“The ……… conclusion is that Mr Franco was not a person protected from unfair dismissal within the meaning of s 382 of the FW Act and the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain his unfair dismissal application nor power to grant him the remedies that it did. The Commissioner’s decision and order must therefore be quashed, and Mr Franco’s unfair dismissal application must be dismissed as incompetent. Regrettably, this leaves Mr Franco with no remedy he can obtain from the Fair Work Commission for what was, plainly in our view, unfair treatment on the part of Deliveroo.” (p. 57)

Outcome of the Appeal:

The appeal was upheld. The original decision was quashed and Franco’s unfair dismissal claim was dismissed.

Takeaway from the case (Deliveroo Australia Pty Ltd v Diego Franco)

The ruling clarified that in the gig economy, contractual terms, rather than practical work conditions, determine employment status. The case highlights the challenges gig workers face in securing employee protections under Australian labour laws.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/FWCFB/2022/156.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Zuijs v Wirth Brothers Pty Ltd [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

Stevens v Brodribb Sawmilling Co Pty Ltd (1986)

MORE FROM LABOUR LAW:

Potter v Minahan [1908] HCA 63: A Case in Immigration Law

Case Name: Potter v Minahan

Court: High Court of Australia

Citation: [1908] HCA 63; (1908) 7 CLR 277

Date of Judgment: 8 October 1908

Judges: Griffith C.J., Barton, O’Connor, Isaacs, and Higgins JJ.

Appellant: Potter (Informant)

Respondent: Minahan (Defendant)

Area of Law: Immigration, Constitutional Law

The case Potter v Minahan (1908) was heard by the High Court of Australia and revolved around the interpretation of immigration laws. The key question was whether Minahan, who was born in Australia but taken to China as a child, was an “immigrant” upon his return.

Case Facts (Potter v Minahan)

Minahan was born in Victoria, Australia, in 1876 to a British mother and a Chinese father.

At the age of five, he was taken to China by his father and lived there for 26 years.

In 1908, he attempted to return to Australia but was detained under the Immigration Restriction Act 1901-1905. He was denied entry (within the context of the White Australia Policy).

He was required to pass a dictation test, which he failed, leading authorities to classify him as a “prohibited immigrant.”

The case was initially heard in the Court of Petty Sessions in Victoria, where the magistrate ruled that Minahan was not an immigrant under the Act.

The prosecution (Potter) appealed to the High Court.

Legal Issues

Was Minahan an “immigrant” under Australian law?

The government argued that anyone entering the Commonwealth was an immigrant unless proven otherwise. Minahan argued that he was returning to his home country, not immigrating to it.

Did the dictation test comply with legal requirements?

The test was supposed to be dictated to him, but instead, he was asked if he could write in English. Since he admitted he could not, the test was not administered in its proper form.

Court’s Decision in Potter v Minahan

The High Court ruled in favor of Minahan, stating that he was not an immigrant because Australia was his place of birth and home.

The Court emphasized the concept of domicile, stating that Minahan had a right to return to his country of birth unless he had voluntarily changed his domicile.

He had never voluntarily abandoned his domicile of origin.

The dictation test was also deemed improperly administered, further weakening the government’s case.

Key Implications

This case set an important precedent in Australian immigration law by clarifying that not all people entering the country should be treated as immigrants, especially those born there.

It highlighted the importance of domicile in determining immigration status.

The ruling also reinforced the need for strict compliance with legal procedures, particularly in the application of immigration restrictions.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1908/63.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Alati v Kruger [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

MORE FROM OTHER LAWS:

Brown v Smitt [1924] HCA 11: A Legal Case Summary

Brown v Smitt [1924] HCA 11; (1924) 34 CLR 160

Decided on: 14 May 1924
High Court of Australia
Knox C.J., Isaacs, Gavan Duffy, Rich and Starke JJ.
Rescission; misrepresentation; restitution in equity

This case, Brown v Smitt [1924] HCA 11, deals with significant issues concerning the rescission of a contract induced by fraudulent misrepresentation and the equitable adjustments required to restore the parties to their pre-contractual positions.

Facts

The respondent, Smitt, purchased a farm from the appellant, Brown, based on fraudulent representations that:

The farm was a first-class dairying property.
The soil was of good quality and volcanic.
120 acres of the farm had been cleared.

Upon discovering the falsity of these representations, Smitt sought rescission of the contract, return of the amount paid (£755 9s), and compensation for expenses incurred in improving the property.

The trial court found the representations to be false, fraudulent, and a direct inducement for the purchase, and ordered:

Rescission of the contract.
Repayment of £755 9s.
Additional compensation of £175 for improvements and losses.

Legal Issues

Entitlement to Rescission:

Whether the respondent was still entitled to rescission despite his delay in acting upon discovering the misrepresentation. Whether his actions, such as remaining in possession and expressing an intention to sell the property, constituted an election to affirm the contract.

Compensation Beyond Restitution:

Whether the additional compensation of £175 for improvements and expenses was justified under the principles of rescission and restitution.

Court’s Reasoning in Brown v Smitt

The court held that rescission was still permissible as the delay did not prejudice the appellant or involve third parties. The respondent’s actions were not unequivocal affirmations of the contract. The test for affirmation involves clear and intentional acts that confirm the validity of the contract, which were absent here.

The principle of rescission requires both parties to be restored to their pre-contractual positions. Equity permits adjustments for improvements or deterioration of the property, provided they are necessary and permanent.

The court found that some of the compensation awarded by the trial judge was for collateral losses (e.g., losses in business operations), which cannot be claimed in rescission. Such claims require a separate action for damages under deceit.

Improvements that enhance the value of the property, like clearing land or ensuring water supply, can be compensated, but allowances for non-permanent or personal enhancements are not justified.

Outcome:

Rescission of the contract was upheld.
Repayment of £755 9s was affirmed.
The award of £175 as compensation was overturned as it included improper allowances for collateral business losses and non-permanent improvements. The Court directed that an account be taken to assess the proper amount of compensation.

Legal Principles Affirmed (Brown v Smitt)

Fraudulent Misrepresentation: A contract induced by fraud can be rescinded, provided restitution is possible and no substantial prejudice arises.

Restitution in Equity: Rescission aims to place parties as close as possible to their pre-contractual positions, allowing compensation for necessary and permanent improvements but not for collateral losses.

Election and Affirmation: A party’s conduct must unequivocally affirm the contract to bar rescission.

Practical Implications

This case emphasizes the balance between equitable principles and contractual remedies, highlighting that fraudulent misrepresentation invokes a duty to undo the unjust enrichment without overcompensating or penalizing the defaulting party unfairly.

References:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1924/11.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

A Case Summary of Patel v Ali [1984]

MORE RELATED CASES:

Alati v Kruger [1955]: A Legal Case Summary

Alati v Kruger [1955] HCA 64; (1955) 94 CLR 216

Court: High Court of Australia
Date: November 29, 1955
Judges: Dixon C.J., Webb, Fullagar, Kitto, and Taylor JJ.
Rescission; Misrepresentation; Restitutio in integrum

Facts of the Case

The respondent (Alati) purchased a fruit business from the appellant (Kruger) for £700. The business was located on leased premises at Toowong, and the sale was induced by fraudulent misrepresentations made by the appellant and his agents regarding the business’s average takings. The appellant had falsely stated that the business was earning £100 per week, though it was actually earning much less. After taking over the business, the respondent discovered the takings were far lower than represented, leading to the deterioration of the business and eventual closure.

Legal Issues

The primary issue was whether the contract could be rescinded due to fraudulent misrepresentation. The respondent sought rescission of the contract, return of the purchase money, and damages. The appeal centered on whether the respondent was entitled to rescind the contract despite not being able to restore the business exactly as it was at the time of purchase.

Judgment in Alati v Kruger

The High Court of Australia upheld the trial judge’s decision to allow the respondent’s rescission of the contract based on the fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court found the appellant had made false representations about the business’s average weekly takings, which the respondent had relied upon. The business’s actual takings were significantly lower than what was represented.

The Court further noted that while the respondent could not restore the business in the exact condition it was in at the time of the contract due to its deterioration, equity allows for the rescission of contracts induced by fraud even when precise restitutio in integrum (restoration to the original position) is not possible. This is particularly true if equity can do what is practically just between the parties, restoring them substantially to their status quo through the exercise of its powers.

The relief granted included:

1. A declaration of lawful rescission of the contract.

2. Orders for the respondent to return the business premises and related property to the appellant.

3. Repayment of the £700, with interest, and damages for the respondent’s conveyancing costs and stamp duty.

4. A reasonable rental for the period the respondent held the business.

5. An order for the appellant to pay the respondent’s legal costs.

Legal Principles

Fraudulent Misrepresentation: A contract can be rescinded if induced by fraudulent misrepresentation, even if precise restoration of the status quo is not possible.

Rescission in Equity: Equity permits rescission of contracts induced by fraud even if complete restitutio in integrum is not possible, as long as a practical and just remedy can be achieved.

Damages and Restitution: The Court held that the respondent was entitled to damages for any loss suffered due to the fraud and could recover the purchase price and related costs.

Conclusion (Alati v Kruger)

The High Court ruled in favour of the respondent, granting rescission of the contract and ordering the return of the purchase price, damages, and other associated costs. This case is significant in its application of equitable principles in cases of fraud and misrepresentation, emphasizing fairness even when exact restitution is not feasible.

List of references:

https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/1955/64.html

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE:

Weeks v Tybald (1605) Noy 11: A Case Law Summary

MORE RELATED CASES: