Maestrale & Anor v Australian National Security Pty Ltd trading as All Night Security & Ors (No 2) [2006] NSWIRComm 153

Maestrale & Anor v Australian National Security Pty Ltd trading as All Night Security & Ors (No 2) [2006] NSWIRComm 153

The Court had found that the contract or arrangement between the first applicant and the first respondent was designed to and did avoid the provisions of an industrial instrument within s 105(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and the parties subsequently agreed on compensatory and costs orders, which the Court made and published.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Publication of Agreed Compensatory and Costs Orders Following Earlier Unfair Contract Determination
Outcome
Agreed compensatory and costs orders made and published.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'security Guard' 'avoidance of Industrial Instrument' 'compensation' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'security Guard' 'avoidance of Industrial Instrument' 'compensation' 'costs']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Publication of Agreed Compensatory and Costs Orders Following Earlier Unfair Contract Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract or arrangement under which the first applicant performed work as a security guard was an unfair contract within the meaning of s 105(c) or s 105(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'What compensatory order and costs orders should be made following the finding that the contract or arrangement was designed to and did avoid the provisions of an industrial instrument.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court had found that the contract or arrangement between the first applicant and the first respondent was designed to and did avoid the provisions of an industrial instrument within s 105(d) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and the parties subsequently agreed on compensatory and costs orders, which the Court made and published.

Court Disposition

Agreed compensatory and costs orders made and published.

Orders

  • ['Alfio Peter Merlino, the fourth respondent, is to pay the first applicant the sum of $14,000.' "Alfio Peter Merlino, the fourth respondent, is to pay 85 percent of the first applicant's costs of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed, up to the date of judgment being 29 November 2005. Each party is to pay their...