Perez v Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services [2016] FCA 476

Perez v Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services [2016] FCA 476

Ms Andrews' recommendation in her investigative report constituted adverse action for a proscribed reason, and the respondent failed to discharge the s 361 onus. The standing down (suspension) of the appellant was adverse action, but the respondent discharged the s 361 onus showing it was for legitimate safety and operational reasons, not a proscribed reason. Destruction of CCTV footage and performance review did not constitute adverse action. Claims of apprehended bias by the trial judge failed.

Parties
Appellant: Luis Edgar Perez; First Respondent: Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services; Second Respondent: William Yan; Third Respondent: Nicole Bell; Fourth Respondent: Frank Tunney; Fifth Respondent: John Brown; Sixth Respondent: Grant Ballantine; Seventh Respondent: Michael Adeyemo
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Post Trial Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; appeal otherwise dismissed.
Legal Topics
Adverse Action, Workplace Rights, Performance Appraisal, Discrimination, Workers Compensation, Apprehended Bias
Employment Law Industrial Law Adverse Action Workplace Rights Performance Appraisal Discrimination Workers Compensation Apprehended Bias

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Luis Edgar Perez

Appellant

Northern Territory Department of Correctional Services

First Respondent

William Yan

Second Respondent

Nicole Bell

Third Respondent

Frank Tunney

Fourth Respondent

John Brown

Fifth Respondent

Grant Ballantine

Sixth Respondent

Michael Adeyemo

Seventh Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Post Trial Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether performance review constituted adverse action
  2. 2 Whether standing down (suspension) constituted adverse action
  3. 3 Whether destruction of CCTV footage constituted adverse action

Ratio Decidendi

Ms Andrews' recommendation in her investigative report constituted adverse action for a proscribed reason, and the respondent failed to discharge the s 361 onus. The standing down (suspension) of the appellant was adverse action, but the respondent discharged the s 361 onus showing it was for legitimate safety and operational reasons, not a proscribed reason. Destruction of CCTV footage and performance review did not constitute adverse action. Claims of apprehended bias by the trial judge failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; appeal otherwise dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed in part.
  • Order of the Federal Circuit Court on 29 May 2015 is set aside.