Ermogenous V Greek Orthodox Community of Sa Inc. [2002] Hca 8; 209 Clr 95; 76 Aljr 465; 187 Alr 92 (7 March 2002)

Philip J. Cooper v. Charles Austin 837 S. W. 2d 606 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1992)

Ermogenous v Greek Orthodox Community of SA Inc. (2002) 209 CLR 95 is an important Australian contract law case on the conditions for valid contracts. The case was based on the element of ‘intention to establish legal relations’ between the parties. In this case, Archbishop Ermogenous filed claims for compensation in annual earnings and other benefits he had accrued after long service leave. His ‘employer’ was the Greek Orthodox Community. The court of first instance granted the claims, which were later denied by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Southern Australia on the basis that there was no sufficient intention to establish binding relations between the clergy and the organization. The claimant appealed the decision at the

Judgement/Disposition: Yes, the order of the Appellate Division that invalidated the ESDC’s determination was reversed, with costs, and the petitions were dismissed.

be described. Jurisdictional requirements for this case as well as the reasons why it was heard at

The Court ruled in favor of the appellant, and the decision is described as follows:

Legal citation of the case: Regina v Bilal Skaf; Regina v Mohammed Skaf [2006] NSWSC 394, 28 July 2006 AND amendment to this decision with the appeal: R v Skaf & Skaf [2008] NSWCCA 303, 17 December 2008

Parties to the Case, Facts of the Case, and Business Reasons for the Dispute (30 points)

In conclusion, this case could have been started for monetary reasons, but the initial decision appeared to be made based on the case being controversial in many areas beyond monetary considerations.

favor. The case had yet again been appealed, and this time the Supreme Court is

The first argument is supported from the Transport Workers Airlines Award 1988 similar to the case of Mallinson and Scottish Australian Investment Co Ltd 'where an employee tried to recover in the New South Wales District Courts the difference between the award rate and the lesser amount which he had been paid.'

Analyze Luxford & Anor v Sidhu & 3 others [2007] NSWSC 1356 (3 December 2007) as follows:

1) What were the legal issues in this case? What did the appeals court decide?

What did the appellate court rule? Did it agree with the trial court (affirm) or disagree (reverse)?

The issue here becomes whether the court’s decision was the right one or if they could have come up with a different decision had the case been studied from different perspectives making the decision wrong. Both arguments (for and against the Court’s decision) are discussed below, but I personally believe that court’s decision was the only right one to make.

Appellant contends that the district court erred in convicting her under the malicious-punishment statue as well as in ruling that the statute does not require proof of bodily harm. Accordingly, if proof of bodily harm is not required for conviction of malicious punishment, the statute is unconstitutionally vague.