Clarke v. Godwin [2005] NSWIRComm 1201
Mrs Clarke's dismissal was found unfair because, although there were instances of dissatisfaction with her work performance, she was not given adequate warning as required under S.88(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. As reinstatement was impracticable and Mrs Clarke suffered a financial loss due to lower...
Source-derived case information.
- Parties
- Applicant: Michelle Clarke; Respondent: Karen Godwin
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 22 December 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Unfair Dismissal Application / Decision After Arbitration
- Outcome
- Application allowed; unfair dismissal found; monetary compensation ordered
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Dismissal, Casual Employment, Termination of Employment, Warning Regarding Performance, Compensation Assessment
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Michelle Clarke
Applicant
Karen Godwin
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Unfair Dismissal Application / Decision After Arbitration
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of Mrs Clarke amounted to unfair dismissal under Part 6, Chapter 2 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996
- 2 Whether Mrs Clarke was a casual employee entitled to the protection of Part 6
- 3 Whether adequate warning of unsatisfactory performance was given
Ratio Decidendi
Mrs Clarke's dismissal was found unfair because, although there were instances of dissatisfaction with her work performance, she was not given adequate warning as required under S.88(c) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996. As reinstatement was impracticable and Mrs Clarke suffered a financial loss due to lower subsequent wages, she was awarded monetary compensation.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; unfair dismissal found; monetary compensation ordered
Orders
- Mrs Karen Godwin shall pay the sum of $5,500.00 to Mrs Michelle Clarke within 28 days of the order.
- This order shall take effect on and from Thursday, 22 December, 2005.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment