Knipe v Mayumarri Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1058

Knipe v Mayumarri Pty Limited [2006] NSWIRComm 1058

The applicant's employment was for a specified period or fixed term, first part-time from 1 July 2004 and then full-time from 1 December 2004 to 30 June 2005, tied to the respondent's funding. The contract ended automatically by effluxion of time on 30 June 2005. The possibility of later casual or part-time work and...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Regarding Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Decision After Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits of the Unfair Dismissal Application
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction because there was no termination at the initiative of the respondent.
Legal Topics
['unfair Dismissal' 'fixed Term Employment' 'termination at Initiative of Employer' 'effluxion of Time' 'jurisdiction' 'employment Subject to Funding']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Dismissal' 'fixed Term Employment' 'termination at Initiative of Employer' 'effluxion of Time' 'jurisdiction' 'employment Subject to Funding']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Regarding Unfair Dismissal Pursuant to S 84 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Decision After Hearing on Jurisdiction and Merits of the Unfair Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant was engaged under a contract of employment for a specified period of time or fixed term.' "Whether the applicant's employment was terminated at the initiative of the respondent or ended automatically by effluxion of time." 'Whether the Commission had jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's employment was for a specified period or fixed term, first part-time from 1 July 2004 and then full-time from 1 December 2004 to 30 June 2005, tied to the respondent's funding. The contract ended automatically by effluxion of time on 30 June 2005. The possibility of later casual or part-time work and the roster did not create a continuing employment contract. Because there was no termination at the initiative of the respondent, the Commission lacked jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of jurisdiction because there was no termination at the initiative of the respondent.

Orders

  • ['The application is dismissed.' 'The proceedings are concluded.']