Elkins v Full Bloom Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 223

Elkins v Full Bloom Pty Ltd [2000] NSWIRComm 223

The summons was dismissed because the applicant did not establish that she was dismissed or constructively dismissed, did not establish an entitlement to retrospective reasonable remuneration or payment in lieu of notice, and did not establish a basis in these proceedings for orders restraining use of designs or requiring royalties. The evidence showed that the 26 February 1999 ultimatum was directed to resolving an unresponsive and dysfunctional working relationship, while the applicant's removal of patterns and personal property indicated that she had no intention of returning to the business. The remuneration claim was unrealistic given the financial position of Full Bloom and the...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract or Arrangement / Final Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'termination of Employment' 'constructive Dismissal' 'reasonable Remuneration' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'employee Created Designs and Copyright' 'shareholder and Working Director Arrangements']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'copyright and Intellectual Property'] ['unfair Contract' 'termination of Employment' 'constructive Dismissal' 'reasonable Remuneration' 'payment in Lieu of Notice' 'employee Created Designs and Copyright' 'shareholder and Working Director Arrangements']

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 Under S106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 Alleging an Unfair Contract or Arrangement / Final Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the contract or arrangement between the applicant and the respondents was unfair under s106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' 'Whether the applicant was dismissed or constructively dismissed on 26 February 1999.' 'Whether the applicant should receive reasonable remuneration for work performed between 2 February 1994 and 26 February 1999.' 'Whether the applicant should receive payment in lieu of notice.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to restrain use of, or receive royalties for, designs or patterns used by Full Bloom.']

Ratio Decidendi

The summons was dismissed because the applicant did not establish that she was dismissed or constructively dismissed, did not establish an entitlement to retrospective reasonable remuneration or payment in lieu of notice, and did not establish a basis in these proceedings for orders restraining use of designs or requiring royalties. The evidence showed that the 26 February 1999 ultimatum was directed to resolving an unresponsive and dysfunctional working relationship, while the applicant's removal of patterns and personal property indicated that she had no intention of returning to the business. The remuneration claim was unrealistic given the financial position of Full Bloom and the...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The summons for relief is dismissed.']