Raftery and KMPB Group Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 1053

Raftery and KMPB Group Pty Ltd [2006] NSWIRComm 1053

On the evidence before the Commission, and in the absence of any competing explanation from the respondent, the only reason available for the termination was the applicant's pregnancy. The termination was therefore harsh and unjust. Reinstatement or re-employment was impracticable because the respondent company had...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Parte Hearing and Decision After Respondent Failed to Attend or File Material
Outcome
Application upheld; maximum compensation ordered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'pregnancy Dismissal' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticable']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'pregnancy Dismissal' 'ex Parte Hearing' 'compensation' 'reinstatement Impracticable']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Ex Parte Hearing and Decision After Respondent Failed to Attend or File Material

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh and unjust" "Whether the only reason available for termination was the applicant's pregnancy" 'Whether reinstatement or re-employment was impracticable' 'What compensation should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence before the Commission, and in the absence of any competing explanation from the respondent, the only reason available for the termination was the applicant's pregnancy. The termination was therefore harsh and unjust. Reinstatement or re-employment was impracticable because the respondent company had ceased to trade, and the severity of the respondent's action warranted maximum compensation.

Court Disposition

Application upheld; maximum compensation ordered.

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of 26 weeks pay at the rate of $782.15, being an amount of $20,335.90.' 'The payment be made within 21 days of 28 March 2006.']