(c) If there was a term of the contract of employment such as that the appellant contends for, it remained operative in March 2011 and had not been breached as at that time, it not being time limited, and the appellant's resignation ended its operation. (d) No comment is made on the nature or adequacy of the training given to the appellant during his employment or under the professional training agreement. It is not necessary to do so in light of the above findings. It is noted, however, that the appellant failing the Boya examination proves nothing in relation to the adequacy or otherwise of that training. No argument is properly available that because the appellant failed the Boya examination his training must have been inadequate. Exhibit 6 in fact suggests other reasons for the appellant's failure but there is no need to make findings in relation to this issue. Grounds of appeal The grounds of appeal are largely in the form of a convoluted submission which to some degree is repetitive. However, from the arguments put by the appellant the grounds can be discerned as follows: (a) Ground 1 and ground 2 The learned Commissioner erred in fact and in law in finding that it was not a term of the appellant's contract of employment that the respondent was obligated to train the appellant to become a licensed surveyor. The appellant's particulars of these grounds can be summarised as: (i) the learned Commissioner misunderstood the duties of the appellant's role as survey party leader; (ii) in accordance with the terms of exhibit 1 and cl 15 of exhibit 4 the appellant entered into a professional training agreement at which time he became an articled surveyor (cadet) under the supervision of a licensed surveyor employed by the respondent, Mr Jonath; and (iii) pursuant to s 16 of the only a licensed surveyor and by Licensed Surveyors Act extension a surveyor under training can carry out licensed survey work.
(c) If there was a term of the contract of employment such as that the appellant contends for, it remained operative in March 2011 and had not been breached as at that time, it not being time limited, and the appellant's resignation ended its operation. (d) No comment is made on the nature or adequacy of the training given to the appellant during his employment or under the professional training agreement. It is not necessary to do so in light of the above findings. It is noted, however, that the appellant failing the Boya examination proves nothing in relation to the adequacy or otherwise of that training. No argument is properly available that because the appellant failed the Boya examination his training must have been inadequate. Exhibit 6 in fact suggests other reasons for the appellant's failure but there is no need to make findings in relation to this issue. Grounds of appeal The grounds of appeal are largely in the form of a convoluted submission which to some degree is repetitive. However, from the arguments put by the appellant the grounds can be discerned as follows: (a) Ground 1 and ground 2 The learned Commissioner erred in fact and in law in finding that it was not a term of the appellant's contract of employment that the respondent was obligated to train the appellant to become a licensed surveyor. The appellant's particulars of these grounds can be summarised as: (i) the learned Commissioner misunderstood the duties of the appellant's role as survey party leader; (ii) in accordance with the terms of exhibit 1 and cl 15 of exhibit 4 the appellant entered into a professional training agreement at which time he became an articled surveyor (cadet) under the supervision of a licensed surveyor employed by the respondent, Mr Jonath; and (iii) pursuant to s 16 of the Licensed Surveyors Act only a licensed surveyor and by extension a surveyor under training can carry out licensed survey work.
FBA-10-2016-201700301.DOCX