Broadbent v Carvene Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 577

Broadbent v Carvene Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 577

The applicant was a casual employee, not excluded under regulation 30B(1)(d), but excluded from notice provisions. The respondent had a valid reason for termination based on operational requirements due to unprofitability in the department. Termination was not motivated by proscribed reasons such as sexual...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Cheryl Broadbent; Respondent: Carvene Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 November 1996
Procedural Posture
Termination of Employment Application Under Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Casual Employment, Redundancy, Operational Requirements, Sexual Harassment Allegations
Industrial Law Employment Law Termination of Employment Casual Employment Redundancy Operational Requirements Sexual Harassment Allegations

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheryl Broadbent

Applicant

Carvene Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Termination of Employment Application Under Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was excluded from the protections of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) as a casual employee
  2. 2 Whether the respondent had a valid reason for termination based on operational requirements
  3. 3 Whether termination was motivated by proscribed reasons, including sexual harassment or sex discrimination

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant was a casual employee, not excluded under regulation 30B(1)(d), but excluded from notice provisions. The respondent had a valid reason for termination based on operational requirements due to unprofitability in the department. Termination was not motivated by proscribed reasons such as sexual harassment or sex discrimination. The respondent discharged its onus under s170DE(1).

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.