Leanne May Willcocks v Makfren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Circuit Technology [1995] IRCA 392

Leanne May Willcocks v Makfren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Circuit Technology [1995] IRCA 392

The applicant did not have available an adequate alternative remedy under the State legislation at the relevant time, as there was not a present entitlement to pursue a claim—the available State remedies depended on the exercise of discretion to extend time, and in any event, the remedies and onus of proof under the State Act fell short of the requirements in the Termination of Employment Convention. Therefore, s.170EB did not require the Court to decline jurisdiction.

Parties
Applicant: Leanne May Willcocks; Respondent: Makfren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Circuit Technology
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) S 170 EA for Remedy in Respect of Termination of Employment / Interlocutory Question Regarding Availability of Adequate Alternative Remedy Under S 170 EB
Outcome
Declaration that the Court is not satisfied an adequate alternative remedy exists under existing machinery as required by s.170EB; no order for costs.
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Adequate Alternative Remedy, Termination of Employment Convention, State and Commonwealth Industrial Legislation
Industrial Law Unlawful Termination Adequate Alternative Remedy Termination of Employment Convention State and Commonwealth Industrial Legislation

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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leanne May Willcocks

Applicant

Makfren Holdings Pty Ltd t/as Circuit Technology

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under Industrial Relations Act 1988 (cth) S 170 EA for Remedy in Respect of Termination of Employment / Interlocutory Question Regarding Availability of Adequate Alternative Remedy Under S 170 EB

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has an available adequate alternative remedy in respect of the termination under W.A. State legislation, for the purposes of s.170EB of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth).

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not have available an adequate alternative remedy under the State legislation at the relevant time, as there was not a present entitlement to pursue a claim—the available State remedies depended on the exercise of discretion to extend time, and in any event, the remedies and onus of proof under the State Act fell short of the requirements in the Termination of Employment Convention. Therefore, s.170EB did not require the Court to decline jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Declaration that the Court is not satisfied an adequate alternative remedy exists under existing machinery as required by s.170EB; no order for costs.

Orders

  • It is declared that for the purposes of s.170EB of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) the Court is not satisfied an adequate alternative remedy is available under the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (W.A.), as amended.
  • No order as to costs.