Burgess and Ors v Mount Thorley Operation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] NSWIRComm 180

Burgess and Ors v Mount Thorley Operation Pty Ltd (No 2) [2004] NSWIRComm 180

The appellants failed to identify any contractual term relating to restructure, redundancy, or alleged unfairness that could be declared void for unfairness; the conduct complained of either did not form a term of the contract or was governed by federal instruments, meaning the orders sought were inconsistent with those instruments and thus outside jurisdiction. No money orders or compensation under s 106 or s 154 of the Industrial Relations Act could be made.

Parties
Appellant: Michael John Burgess; Appellant: Geoffrey Ian Bright; Appellant: Ross Allen Brown; Appellant: John Douglas Cuddigan; Appellant: Barry Fong; Appellant: Leslie James Irvine; Appellant: William Robert Hoye; Appellant: Rodney William Jones; Appellant: Charles Anthony Mitchell; Appellant: Michael Matthew Phillips; Appellant: Michael Bruce Sampson; Appellant: Marvyn Smith; Appellant: Frederick George Veigel; Appellant: Raymond Gordon Wills; Respondent: Mount Thorley Operations Pty Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment After Further Submissions on Outstanding Issues
Outcome
appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Redundancy, Employment Termination, Remedies Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996, Jurisdictional Inconsistency
Industrial Law Unfair Contracts Redundancy Employment Termination Remedies Under S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 Jurisdictional Inconsistency

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael John Burgess

Appellant

Geoffrey Ian Bright

Appellant

Ross Allen Brown

Appellant

John Douglas Cuddigan

Appellant

Barry Fong

Appellant

Leslie James Irvine

Appellant

William Robert Hoye

Appellant

Rodney William Jones

Appellant

Charles Anthony Mitchell

Appellant

Michael Matthew Phillips

Appellant

Michael Bruce Sampson

Appellant

Marvyn Smith

Appellant

Frederick George Veigel

Appellant

Raymond Gordon Wills

Appellant

Mount Thorley Operations Pty Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment After Further Submissions on Outstanding Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether employment contracts could be declared wholly or partly void for unfairness under s 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
  2. 2 Whether the process of restructure and selection for redundancy was part of the employment contract and could be voided for unfairness
  3. 3 Whether consequential money orders or compensation could be ordered under the Act

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants failed to identify any contractual term relating to restructure, redundancy, or alleged unfairness that could be declared void for unfairness; the conduct complained of either did not form a term of the contract or was governed by federal instruments, meaning the orders sought were inconsistent with those instruments and thus outside jurisdiction. No money orders or compensation under s 106 or s 154 of the Industrial Relations Act could be made.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; leave to appeal granted

Orders

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