Najmitdinov v Woolworths Group Limited [2019] NSWCATAD 51

Najmitdinov v Woolworths Group Limited [2019] NSWCATAD 51

Although termination would be a detriment and Woolworths conceded that the applicant had made allegations falling within s 50(1)(c), the applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of a causal connection between those allegations and the threatened termination. The prior disciplinary history, including similar allegations predating the protected allegations, left almost no basis to infer that the January 2019 allegations were manufactured because of discrimination complaints. Given the applicant's extremely low prospects of success, the prejudice to him if dismissed did not justify an interim order despite the balance of convenience considerations.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Anti Discrimination Complaint; Application for Interim Order / Application for Interim Order to Prevent Termination of Employment Pending Determination of Complaint
Outcome
The applicant's application for an interim order is refused.
Legal Topics
['interim Orders' 'victimisation' 'disability Discrimination' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'termination of Employment']
['anti Discrimination Law' 'employment Law' 'administrative Law'] ['interim Orders' 'victimisation' 'disability Discrimination' 'prima Facie Case' 'balance of Convenience' 'termination of Employment']

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

Anti Discrimination Complaint; Application for Interim Order / Application for Interim Order to Prevent Termination of Employment Pending Determination of Complaint

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had shown a sufficient likelihood of success on a victimisation claim under s 50 of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) to justify preserving the status quo.' "Whether the balance of convenience favoured an interim order restraining Woolworths from terminating the applicant's employment."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although termination would be a detriment and Woolworths conceded that the applicant had made allegations falling within s 50(1)(c), the applicant did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of a causal connection between those allegations and the threatened termination. The prior disciplinary history, including similar allegations predating the protected allegations, left almost no basis to infer that the January 2019 allegations were manufactured because of discrimination complaints. Given the applicant's extremely low prospects of success, the prejudice to him if dismissed did not justify an interim order despite the balance of convenience considerations.

Court Disposition

The applicant's application for an interim order is refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an interim order is refused."]