Greg Anderson and Karen Lansdell [2008] NSWIRComm 179

Greg Anderson and Karen Lansdell [2008] NSWIRComm 179

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenge to the Commissioner's acceptance of the respondent's version of the 25 January 2008 conversation was a challenge to factual findings that were reasonably open on the evidence, and because the offer of re-employment was not squarely developed at first instance, was not relevant as "alternative employment" under s 89(6), and the compensation awarded was within the proper range.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against Unfair Dismissal Decision / Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; stay of the orders at first instance dissolved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'challenge to Factual Findings' 'offer of Re Employment' 'assessment of Compensation' 'alternative Employment Under S 89(6)']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'leave to Appeal' 'challenge to Factual Findings' 'offer of Re Employment' 'assessment of Compensation' 'alternative Employment Under S 89(6)']

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 Unfair Dismissal Decision / Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal should be granted under s 188 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' "Whether the Commissioner erred in accepting the respondent's version of the telephone conversation on 25 January 2008." 'Whether the Commissioner failed to take into account an offer of re-employment when assessing compensation under s 89(6) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenge to the Commissioner's acceptance of the respondent's version of the 25 January 2008 conversation was a challenge to factual findings that were reasonably open on the evidence, and because the offer of re-employment was not squarely developed at first instance, was not relevant as "alternative employment" under s 89(6), and the compensation awarded was within the proper range.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; stay of the orders at first instance dissolved.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' 'The stay of the orders at first instance is dissolved.']