POTTER v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [1997] IRCA 24

POTTER v AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY [1997] IRCA 24

Given Ms Potter's circumstances, including her medical history and state at time of appointment, and the purpose for delay, it was reasonable for the maximum probationary period of two years to apply; regulation 30B operated to exclude her from statutory unfair dismissal protections relied on; there was no...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Kim Susan Potter; Respondent: Australian Capital Territory
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 1997
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 170 EA Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Final Decision
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Probation, Public Sector Employment, Disability Discrimination
Industrial Law Employment Law Termination of Employment Probation Public Sector Employment Disability Discrimination

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kim Susan Potter

Applicant

Australian Capital Territory

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 170 EA Workplace Relations Act 1996 / Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the maximum probationary period of two years for a junior clerical position was reasonable under reg 30B(1)(c) of the Workplace Relations Regulations
  2. 2 Whether the respondent lawfully terminated Ms Potter's employment without contravention of s 170DE(1) or s 170DF(1)(f) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's probationary status or protections under the PS Act were affected by representations or estoppel

Ratio Decidendi

Given Ms Potter's circumstances, including her medical history and state at time of appointment, and the purpose for delay, it was reasonable for the maximum probationary period of two years to apply; regulation 30B operated to exclude her from statutory unfair dismissal protections relied on; there was no sufficiently clear representation to found an estoppel as to continued protection under Division 8C.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.