Larke -V- State Trustees Ltd [1996] IRCA 109

Larke -V- State Trustees Ltd [1996] IRCA 109

Although the Judicial Registrar held only a preliminary view that the applicant's s170EA claim might be unarguable because of the jurisdictional restrictions in s170CD, the respondent had not shown that the lack of jurisdiction was so plain and obvious as to justify summary dismissal. The applicant had also foreshadowed associated jurisdiction claims, and the Court was not in a position to determine that the original claim was a sham fabricated to create jurisdiction. The respondent's motion was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Remedy for Unlawful Termination of Employment Under S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Respondent's Notice of Motion for Dismissal of the Application
Outcome
Respondent's motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination of Employment' 'summary Dismissal of Proceedings' 'jurisdiction Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'award and Non Award Employment']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination of Employment' 'summary Dismissal of Proceedings' 'jurisdiction Under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'award and Non Award 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 for Remedy for Unlawful Termination of Employment Under S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Respondent's Notice of Motion for Dismissal of the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was excluded from the jurisdiction of Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 because he was a non-award employee whose relevant wages exceeded the amount prescribed in s170CD.' 'Whether the application under s170EA should be summarily dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.' "Whether foreshadowed associated jurisdiction claims should be summarily determined by granting the respondent's motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Judicial Registrar held only a preliminary view that the applicant's s170EA claim might be unarguable because of the jurisdictional restrictions in s170CD, the respondent had not shown that the lack of jurisdiction was so plain and obvious as to justify summary dismissal. The applicant had also foreshadowed associated jurisdiction claims, and the Court was not in a position to determine that the original claim was a sham fabricated to create jurisdiction. The respondent's motion was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Respondent's motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Respondent's Motion brought by Notice filed 20 February 1996 be dismissed."]