Bell and Berg v Macquarie Bank Ltd and Another [2003] NSWIRComm 363

Bell and Berg v Macquarie Bank Ltd and Another [2003] NSWIRComm 363

Although the trial judge erred in finding that s 109A precluded the consideration of procedural fairness under s 106 for a termination occurring before s 109A was introduced, that error did not materially affect the outcome because it was reasonably open to the judge to find no relevant unfairness in the termination. The remaining grounds raised did not warrant leave to appeal as they did not involve issues of sufficient public importance.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Charles Bell; First Respondent: Macquarie Bank Ltd; Second Respondent: Macquarie International Capital Markets Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; costs orders made
Legal Topics
Unfair Contract, Leave to Appeal, Procedural Fairness, Section 109 a Industrial Relations Act 1996, Public Interest
Industrial Relations Unfair Contract Leave to Appeal Procedural Fairness Section 109 a Industrial Relations Act 1996 Public Interest

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Charles Bell

Appellant

Macquarie Bank Ltd

First Respondent

Macquarie International Capital Markets Ltd

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether s 109A of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 excludes consideration under s 106 of procedural fairness
  2. 2 Whether trial judge failed to determine relevant employment arrangements
  3. 3 Whether credit findings against appellants warranted intervention

Ratio Decidendi

Although the trial judge erred in finding that s 109A precluded the consideration of procedural fairness under s 106 for a termination occurring before s 109A was introduced, that error did not materially affect the outcome because it was reasonably open to the judge to find no relevant unfairness in the termination. The remaining grounds raised did not warrant leave to appeal as they did not involve issues of sufficient public importance.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; costs orders made

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused.
  • The appeal is dismissed.