Purdue v Brown and Hatton Group Pty Limited [1996] IRCA 188

Purdue v Brown and Hatton Group Pty Limited [1996] IRCA 188

The evidence on review established that Brown and Hatton Rural Pty Limited continued to operate the piggery until 30 June 1994 and terminated all piggery employees because it would cease operating the business, which was a valid reason connected with its operational requirements. Brown and Hatton Group Pty Limited was never the applicants' employer. Although Parkville made and then terminated new employment contracts, those contracts were for casual employment commencing 1 July 1994, and the applicants had not been engaged by Parkville on a regular and systematic basis for six months with an expectation of continuation. Regulation 30B therefore excluded them from the operation of s.170DE,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 May 1996
Procedural Posture
Unlawful Termination Proceedings / Applications to Review Exercises of Power by a Judicial Registrar
Outcome
Applications for review granted; Judicial Registrar's orders set aside; Kenneth Purdue's and Peter Jackson's applications under s.170EA dismissed.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'relief Against Employer' 'operational Requirements of Undertaking' 'sale of Business' 'casual Employment Exclusion' "review of Judicial Registrar's Exercise of Power"]
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'relief Against Employer' 'operational Requirements of Undertaking' 'sale of Business' 'casual Employment Exclusion' "review of Judicial Registrar's Exercise of Power"]

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Unlawful Termination Proceedings / Applications to Review Exercises of Power by a Judicial Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether orders under s.170EE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 could be made against multiple respondents where the Judicial Registrar was uncertain which respondent was the employer.' "Whether Brown and Hatton Rural Pty Limited had a valid reason connected with the operational requirements of its undertaking for terminating the applicants' employment." "Whether Brown and Hatton Group Pty Limited was ever the applicants' employer." "Whether Parkville Pig Stud Pty Limited's termination of the new employment contracts gave the applicants a remedy under s.170DE despite the offer being for casual employment."]

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence on review established that Brown and Hatton Rural Pty Limited continued to operate the piggery until 30 June 1994 and terminated all piggery employees because it would cease operating the business, which was a valid reason connected with its operational requirements. Brown and Hatton Group Pty Limited was never the applicants' employer. Although Parkville made and then terminated new employment contracts, those contracts were for casual employment commencing 1 July 1994, and the applicants had not been engaged by Parkville on a regular and systematic basis for six months with an expectation of continuation. Regulation 30B therefore excluded them from the operation of s.170DE,...

Court Disposition

Applications for review granted; Judicial Registrar's orders set aside; Kenneth Purdue's and Peter Jackson's applications under s.170EA dismissed.

Orders

  • ["In No. NI.531 of 1994, the application for review of the Judicial Registrar's exercise of power be granted." 'In No. NI.531 of 1994, Orders 2, 3 and 4 made by Judicial Registrar Linkenbagh on 18 March 1996 be set aside and, in lieu thereof, the application under s.170EA of Kenneth Purdue be dismissed.' "In No....