Mulcahy, Barry & Ors v The Hydro-Electric Commission [1998] FCA 1780

Mulcahy, Barry & Ors v The Hydro-Electric Commission [1998] FCA 1780

The appellants' proposed test, based on whether the work formed an integral part of the ordinary and regular undertaking of the Commission, was inconsistent with the wording and practical operation of the relevant legislation. The correct approach required objective consideration of the employment at appointment, including the express and implied terms and any later express or implied variation. On that approach the trial Judge made no error in finding that the selected applicants were not employed in a permanent capacity, and the 26 other employees were not shown to be in a different position.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeal in Superannuation/employment Proceedings / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['retirement Benefits' 'permanent and Temporary Employment' 'hydro Electric Commission Employees' 'representative Proceedings Under Part Iva']
['superannuation' 'employment Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['retirement Benefits' 'permanent and Temporary Employment' 'hydro Electric Commission Employees' 'representative Proceedings Under Part Iva']

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

Appeal in Superannuation/employment Proceedings / Appeal From a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether employees of the Hydro-Electric Commission engaged as Wages employees or Temporary Staff were employed in a permanent capacity for the purposes of the relevant Tasmanian superannuation and retirement benefits legislation.' 'Whether the trial Judge applied the wrong test in determining that none of the selected applicants was employed in a permanent capacity.' "Whether the personal circumstances of 26 former Wages employees took them outside the trial Judge's findings."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants' proposed test, based on whether the work formed an integral part of the ordinary and regular undertaking of the Commission, was inconsistent with the wording and practical operation of the relevant legislation. The correct approach required objective consideration of the employment at appointment, including the express and implied terms and any later express or implied variation. On that approach the trial Judge made no error in finding that the selected applicants were not employed in a permanent capacity, and the 26 other employees were not shown to be in a different position.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed.' "The appellant pay the respondent's costs."]