Alex Hille v Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 143

Alex Hille v Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 143

The applicant did not meet the requirements of Regulation 30B(3)(a) or (b) as he was employed for only five months and could not reasonably expect continuing employment; thus, his claim is excluded by the Regulation and must be dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Alex Hille; Respondent: Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Application to Dismiss Before Judicial Registrar
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Specified Period Contract, Employment Terminated Before End of Term, Exclusion Under Regulations
Industrial Law Termination of Employment Specified Period Contract Employment Terminated Before End of Term Exclusion Under Regulations

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Hille

Applicant

Bendix Mintex Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Application to Dismiss Before Judicial Registrar

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant, as a casual employee with a specified maximum period of employment, is excluded from making a claim under Sub-Division C of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act due to Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not meet the requirements of Regulation 30B(3)(a) or (b) as he was employed for only five months and could not reasonably expect continuing employment; thus, his claim is excluded by the Regulation and must be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The Respondent's Notice of motion dated 8 March 1995 is allowed.
  • The application is dismissed.