Howarth, Martin v Frigrite Kingfisher Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 612

Howarth, Martin v Frigrite Kingfisher Pty Ltd [1998] FCA 612

The respondent displaced the statutory presumption by providing credible evidence that the applicant's misconduct was the substantial and operative reason for dismissal, and union activities were not a factor; the application was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Martin Howarth; Respondent: Frigrite KingFisher Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Application Under S 298 T of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Prohibited Reasons for Dismissal, Union Membership and Activities, Misconduct, Burden of Proof
Industrial Law Employment Law Termination of Employment Prohibited Reasons for Dismissal Union Membership and Activities Misconduct Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Howarth

Applicant

Frigrite KingFisher Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application Under S 298 T of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant was terminated for a prohibited reason under s 298K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether the respondent displaced the evidentiary onus that dismissal was not for a prohibited reason
  3. 3 Whether union membership and shop steward activities were a substantial and operative factor in dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent displaced the statutory presumption by providing credible evidence that the applicant's misconduct was the substantial and operative reason for dismissal, and union activities were not a factor; the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.