Sawyer v Cutler-Hammer Pty Ltd. [2002] NSWIRComm 233

Sawyer v Cutler-Hammer Pty Ltd. [2002] NSWIRComm 233

Leave to appeal was refused because it was reasonably open on all the evidence for the first instance judge to conclude that the appellant's termination was not brought about by redundancy, either by design or as a matter of objective fact. The appellant's proposed alternative compensation argument had not been put clearly at first instance and could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and no question of general importance justified leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 September 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['redundancy' 'termination of Employment' 'payment in Lieu of Reasonable Notice' 'leave to Appeal' 'compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['redundancy' 'termination of Employment' 'payment in Lieu of Reasonable Notice' 'leave to Appeal' 'compensation']

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 for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Application for Leave to Appeal in the Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales in Court Session

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant was terminated because of redundancy arising from the respondent's restructuring process." 'Whether findings at first instance that the termination was not brought about by redundancy were open on the evidence.' 'Whether the appellant could raise on appeal an alternative basis for calculating compensation that was not put clearly at first instance.' 'Whether any question of general importance justified a grant of leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because it was reasonably open on all the evidence for the first instance judge to conclude that the appellant's termination was not brought about by redundancy, either by design or as a matter of objective fact. The appellant's proposed alternative compensation argument had not been put clearly at first instance and could not be raised for the first time on appeal, and no question of general importance justified leave.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The Appeal is dismissed.']