Almazova -v- Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd and Another [2006] NSWIRComm 1038

Almazova -v- Kelso Builders Supplies Pty Ltd and Another [2006] NSWIRComm 1038

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because it was effected without clear explanation, without a proper opportunity for the applicant to offer an explanation or defence, without proper documentary advice, and without a proper substantive basis; reinstatement or re-employment was impractical, so compensation was ordered.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 February 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Extempore Ex Parte Decision After Unsuccessful Conciliation and Ex Parte Arbitration Proceedings
Outcome
Application upheld; dismissal found harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation ordered; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'termination of Employment' 'procedural Fairness' 'compensation']

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 Re Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to Section 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Extempore Ex Parte Decision After Unsuccessful Conciliation and Ex Parte Arbitration Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant's dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust" 'Whether reinstatement or re-employment was impractical' 'Whether monetary compensation should be ordered']

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal was harsh, unreasonable and unjust because it was effected without clear explanation, without a proper opportunity for the applicant to offer an explanation or defence, without proper documentary advice, and without a proper substantive basis; reinstatement or re-employment was impractical, so compensation was ordered.

Court Disposition

Application upheld; dismissal found harsh, unreasonable and unjust; compensation ordered; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The employers, jointly and severally, pay to the applicant compensation of $16,000.00 pursuant to sections 89(5) and 89(6) of the Act.' 'The compensation is to be paid within fourteen (14) days from 27 February 2006.' 'The question of costs is reserved.']