Employment negotiations and misleading representations

Haros v Linfox Australia Pty Ltd [2012] FCAFC 42

The appellant Haros was at first instance unsuccessful against Linfox alleging during the negotiation for his employment that misleading representations were made. The trial judge found the employment contract was inconsistent with the representations alleged. Haros was unsuccessful on the appeal not only in relation to this aspect, but that if such representations were made there was no reliance on them.

It is a reminder of the importance of “entire agreement” clauses and the flavouring of language used in employment discussions and what reliance is placed on same.

Brisbane Barrister – David Cormack

Related Posts

Recent Comments