MacLeay v Dalwood [1996] IRCA 477

MacLeay v Dalwood [1996] IRCA 477

The applicant was excluded by operation of regulation 30B(1)(c) from bringing her application under s 170EA because the employment was subject to a three-week probationary period determined in advance and reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, the application was dismissed with costs.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Beverley Lorraine MacLeay; Respondent: Beryl Dalwood
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 September 1996
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 170 EA Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) / Hearing of Notice of Motion (dismissal/costs)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Jurisdictional Exclusion, Probationary Periods, Costs
Industrial Law Termination of Employment Jurisdictional Exclusion Probationary Periods Costs

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beverley Lorraine MacLeay

Applicant

Beryl Dalwood

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 170 EA Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) / Hearing of Notice of Motion (dismissal/costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the applicant excluded by regulation 30B(1)(c) from making a claim under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988?
  2. 2 Was the probationary period three weeks or one week?
  3. 3 Is the period reasonable and determined in advance as required by regulation 30B?

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was excluded by operation of regulation 30B(1)(c) from bringing her application under s 170EA because the employment was subject to a three-week probationary period determined in advance and reasonable in the circumstances. Thus, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application under section 170EA of the Act dismissed
  • Applicant to pay the respondent's costs in the sum of $3500 pursuant to order 62, rule 1B