Dhillon v Rail Corporation of NSW [2009] NSWADT 96

Dhillon v Rail Corporation of NSW [2009] NSWADT 96

The Tribunal had no power to order reinstatement of the special payment. Section 105(1)(a) did not permit restoration of a previously existing state of affairs after the payment had been terminated, and s 105(1)(b) did not apply because the evidence did not establish that the discretionary special payment had become a contractual entitlement or other right of Ms Dhillon.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Orders Under S 105 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) / Interim Order Application
Outcome
Application for interim orders dismissed.
Legal Topics
['interim Orders' 'preservation of the Status Quo' 'preservation of Rights' 'sexual Harassment Complaint' 'discretionary Payments' 'implied Contractual Entitlement']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'contract Law'] ['interim Orders' 'preservation of the Status Quo' 'preservation of Rights' 'sexual Harassment Complaint' 'discretionary Payments' 'implied Contractual Entitlement']

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

Application for Interim Orders Under S 105 of the Anti Discrimination Act 1977 (nsw) / Interim Order Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Tribunal had power under s 105(1)(a) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to order RailCorp to reinstate a special allowance that had already been terminated.' 'Whether the Tribunal had power under s 105(1)(b) to make the order on the basis that Ms Dhillon had a right to the special payment.' 'Whether the special payment had become a contractual entitlement by custom, usage and the passage of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal had no power to order reinstatement of the special payment. Section 105(1)(a) did not permit restoration of a previously existing state of affairs after the payment had been terminated, and s 105(1)(b) did not apply because the evidence did not establish that the discretionary special payment had become a contractual entitlement or other right of Ms Dhillon.

Court Disposition

Application for interim orders dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Ms Dhillon's application for interim orders is dismissed."]