Bruno Denfop v Wu-Jui Mario and Gogol Reforestation Co Ltd and Jant Ltd (2013) N5442

• Jurisdiction: Papua New Guinea
• Court: National Court
• Date: 13 December 2013
• Citation: (2013) N5442
• Docket Number: WS NO 282 OF 2012
• Year: 2013

Full Title: WS NO 282 OF 2012; Bruno Denfop v Wu-Jui Mario and Gogol Reforestation Co Ltd and Jant Ltd (2013) N5442

National Court: Cannings J

Judgment Delivered: 13 December 2013

LAW OF EMPLOYMENT—written contract of service—extension of contract after expiry of period specified in contract: Employment Act, s22 (contract period)

CONTRACTS—whether a contract of employment entered into between a company and an employee is enforceable in the event that the person who signed the contract on behalf of the company was not authorised to do so—rule in Turquand’s case—principles of agency

The plaintiff was employed by the second and/or third defendants from 1991 to 2010. The second defendant is a subsidiary of the third defendant and the first defendant was a manager of the second and/or third defendants. During most of that period the plaintiff was employed pursuant to written contracts of employment. There were other periods when he was employed under oral contracts of employment and one period when he formed a company and his company was contracted to provide his services to the second and/or third defendants. In November 2010 the defendants ceased paying him any salary or payments for his services. Though no formal notice of termination of employment was given to him, that was the time his employment was in fact terminated, and it was not renewed after that. In March 2012 the plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendants, claiming damages for breach of contract. The defendants filed a defence, denying liability, and a trial was conducted, which addressed the issue of liability. The plaintiff based his case on the alleged breach of two contracts: (1) a contract between him and the second defendant entered into on 25 May 2006, which he claims was unlawfully terminated on 31 August 2009; and (2) a contract between him and the third defendant entered into on 1 October 2010, which he claims was unlawfully terminated in November 2010. The defendants argued they did not breach either of those contracts as (1) the 25 May 2006 contract expired on 24 May 2008 and the plaintiff was paid his final entitlements under it (and later re-engaged); and (2) the 1 October 2010 contract was defective and unenforceable as it was not properly executed by all responsible persons in the third defendant.

Held:

(1) The 25 May 2006 contract was a two-year contract that was deemed under Section 22(2) of the Employment Act, upon expiry of the period specified in it, to have been extended for an unspecified period. The contract had not expired when the notice of termination was given on 31 August 2009. However, the contract provided for either party to terminate it...