DAVID-JON ROY DAWN - v - PREMIER REAL ESTATE [1996] IRCA 12

DAVID-JON ROY DAWN - v - PREMIER REAL ESTATE [1996] IRCA 12

The applicant voluntarily left his employment after Mr Johnson raised potential future difficulties concerning the applicant's spouse working for a competitor; no ultimatum was given and the respondent did not initiate the termination. Accordingly there was no termination at the initiative of the employer and no jurisdiction to grant a remedy under section 170EE. The applicant nevertheless proved entitlement to the $385 listing commission for Hazeldene Grove, but not to a selling commission, and the respondent did not establish that the proceedings were vexatious or without reasonable cause.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 January 1996
Procedural Posture
Proceedings Under Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act Seeking a Remedy for Alleged Unlawful Termination and a Commission Claim in Accrued Jurisdiction / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application for a remedy under Division 3 of Part VIA dismissed; applicant awarded $385 for listing commission; respondent's costs application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'extension of Time' 'probationary or Qualifying Period' 'accrued Jurisdiction for Commission Claim' 'costs']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'extension of Time' 'probationary or Qualifying Period' 'accrued Jurisdiction for Commission Claim' 'costs']

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

Proceedings Under Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act Seeking a Remedy for Alleged Unlawful Termination and a Commission Claim in Accrued Jurisdiction / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant needed an extension of time under section 170EA(3) of the Act.' "Whether the applicant's employment was terminated at the initiative of the employer." 'Whether the applicant was excluded from a remedy because he was in a probationary or qualifying period under Regulation 30B(1)(c) of the Regulations.' 'Whether the applicant was entitled to listing or selling commission in the accrued jurisdiction of the Court under section 418 of the Act.' 'Whether the respondent should receive costs under s347(1) of the Act.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant voluntarily left his employment after Mr Johnson raised potential future difficulties concerning the applicant's spouse working for a competitor; no ultimatum was given and the respondent did not initiate the termination. Accordingly there was no termination at the initiative of the employer and no jurisdiction to grant a remedy under section 170EE. The applicant nevertheless proved entitlement to the $385 listing commission for Hazeldene Grove, but not to a selling commission, and the respondent did not establish that the proceedings were vexatious or without reasonable cause.

Court Disposition

Application for a remedy under Division 3 of Part VIA dismissed; applicant awarded $385 for listing commission; respondent's costs application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for a remedy under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Act is dismissed.' 'The respondent is to pay the applicant the sum of $385 within 21 days.' "The respondent's application for costs is dismissed."]