This is the hard lesson learnt by Motorline executives recently, when a full bench of the Queensland Court of Appeal dismissed their application for leave to appeal with costs. The case centred on the validity of the terms of business presented to Motorline by a local recruitment firm.

Queensland motor dealer group, Motorline, disputed the recruiter’s right to charge a $6,500 “temp-to-perm” fee when one of the agency’s on-hire workers was employed in a full-time capacity at Motorline’s sister company, Motorway.

Motorline’s case rested on claims that the recruitment company had not made it clear that the ‘Terms and Conditions of Business’ document formed part of the contract. This was based the agency’s use of the phrase “for your information” when referring to their terms and conditions document.

The case was first heard in the magistrates court where a ruling was made in favour of Motorline, but a successful appeal by the recruiter saw this ruling overturned, which lead Motorline to seek leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal.

Justice of Appeal, Catherine Holmes, upheld the District Court’s decision, ruling in favour of the recruiter. The precedent set in previous dealings between the two companies played a major role in her decision. Motorline had dealt with the agency on nine separate occasions prior to the disputed case and had, on each occasion, been presented with the terms of business. Time sheets had also been issued, which had the agency’s terms of business on the back page. The sheets were signed by senior Motorline employees and clearly stated: “… I accept the terms and conditions for the introduction of temporary workers…”

Motorline argued that, by referring to the terms and conditions as being ‘for your information’, the agency had given the impression that this document merely contained additional information and did not form part of the contract.

Justice Holmes (supported in her findings by Justices Patrick Keane and Duncan McMeekin) disagreed; pointing out that there was no conceivable reason why the recruitment company would continue to send the ‘Terms and Conditions of Business’ document if it had no relevance to the agreement.

Since the document had no obvious purpose other than to convey terms of the contract, the only reason for providing it had to be to bring its contents to Motorline’s attention as the terms and conditions upon of the contract. In the light of these findings, Motorline was ordered by the court to pay the temp-to-perm fee.

Recruitment specialist, Bruce Mills, Joint CEO of 3W Consulting Contracting & Recruitment Pty Ltd, warned recruiters and employers to ensure that they understand the terms and conditions of all contracts prior to entering into them.

“This case illustrates the need for all parties to make themselves fully aware of the terms and conditions of the contract and to have these signed off prior to proceeding with any placements,” he said.