Ian Thompson v Kertam Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 533

Ian Thompson v Kertam Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 533

The applicant's employment was terminated by the respondent on 24 March 1995, not resigned, and the termination was a direct result of the applicant's family responsibilities. The respondent gave no valid reason, did not provide an adequate opportunity to respond, and acted in a manner that was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Because reinstatement was impracticable and the prejudice to the applicant from refusing an extension outweighed the minimal prejudice to the respondent, time was extended and monetary relief was ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Complaint of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Application for Extension of Time, Determination of Termination Issues, and Remedy
Outcome
Time to apply was extended; the Court found the respondent terminated the applicant's employment without valid reason and that the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable; damages and compensation were ordered.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'termination or Resignation' 'extension of Time' 'valid Reason' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'family Responsibilities' 'compensation and Damages']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'unlawful Termination' 'termination or Resignation' 'extension of Time' 'valid Reason' 'harsh, Unjust or Unreasonable Termination' 'family Responsibilities' 'compensation and Damages']

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

Complaint of Unlawful Termination of Employment / Application for Extension of Time, Determination of Termination Issues, and Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to make the application to the Court.' 'Whether the applicant resigned or the respondent terminated his employment.' "Whether the termination was because of the applicant's family responsibilities." 'Whether the applicant was given an opportunity to respond as required by section 170DC.' 'Whether the termination was without valid reason and harsh, unjust and unreasonable.' 'Whether reinstatement was practicable and what compensation or damages should be ordered.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's employment was terminated by the respondent on 24 March 1995, not resigned, and the termination was a direct result of the applicant's family responsibilities. The respondent gave no valid reason, did not provide an adequate opportunity to respond, and acted in a manner that was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. Because reinstatement was impracticable and the prejudice to the applicant from refusing an extension outweighed the minimal prejudice to the respondent, time was extended and monetary relief was ordered.

Court Disposition

Time to apply was extended; the Court found the respondent terminated the applicant's employment without valid reason and that the termination was harsh, unjust and unreasonable; damages and compensation were ordered.

Orders

  • ['That the respondent pay to the applicant damages pursuant to section 170DB of $1029.00 (two weeks notice at $514.50 per week).' 'That the respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the amount of $1512.55 being overtime he would otherwise have received if he had been employed with the respondent. I consider 13...