Steinhardt v Sapphire Bioscience Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 42

Steinhardt v Sapphire Bioscience Pty Ltd [2004] NSWIRComm 42

The applicant’s claim challenges the terms and operation of the contract of employment, specifically the notice period, by genuine reasons relating to the contract itself. This is not essentially an unfair dismissal claim disguised as an unfair contract claim. Accordingly, s 109A does not exclude jurisdiction to grant relief under s 106, and the interlocutory notice of motion to set aside the summons for want of jurisdiction is dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2004
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment Determination of Notice of Motion to Set Aside for Want of Jurisdiction
Outcome
Notice of Motion dismissed; applicant’s claim to proceed.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contracts' 'jurisdiction' 'contract Variation' 'procedural Fairness' 'termination of Employment']
['employment Law' 'industrial Law'] ['unfair Contracts' 'jurisdiction' 'contract Variation' 'procedural Fairness' 'termination of Employment']

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 Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Judgment Determination of Notice of Motion to Set Aside for Want of Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Does s 109A of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 preclude jurisdiction to hear an unfair contract claim where the substance of the claim relates to termination of employment?' "Is the applicant's claim under s 106 in essence an unfair dismissal claim disguised as a contract claim?" "Does the contract term allowing termination on one month's notice constitute an unfair contract term within s 106?"]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant’s claim challenges the terms and operation of the contract of employment, specifically the notice period, by genuine reasons relating to the contract itself. This is not essentially an unfair dismissal claim disguised as an unfair contract claim. Accordingly, s 109A does not exclude jurisdiction to grant relief under s 106, and the interlocutory notice of motion to set aside the summons for want of jurisdiction is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Notice of Motion dismissed; applicant’s claim to proceed.

Orders

  • ['The Notice of Motion filed on 16 January, 2004 is dismissed.' 'The respondents are directed to file a Reply to the Summons within 21 days of the date of this Judgment.' 'Sapphire Bioscience Pty Limited and Cayman Chemical shall pay the costs of Ian Steinhardt, as agreed or failing agreement, as assessed.']