Peter Barter and CRA Limited [1994] IRCA 26

Peter Barter and CRA Limited [1994] IRCA 26

The letter of 14 April 1994 was not adequate written notice of termination by the employer in terms of section 170EA, as it failed to clearly identify which entity was acting as employer. Neither party satisfied the court as to the correct employer. Therefore, the respondent's motion to strike out the application based on untimeliness and misidentification of the employer was dismissed.

Parties
Applicant: Peter Barter; Respondent: CRA Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 August 1994
Procedural Posture
Industrial Relations Application / Interlocutory (motion to Strike Out)
Outcome
motion to strike out dismissed; matter referred for conciliation; directions hearing adjourned
Legal Topics
Termination of Employment, Notice of Termination, Identification of Employer, Procedure Under Section 170 EA
Employment Law Industrial Relations Termination of Employment Notice of Termination Identification of Employer Procedure Under Section 170 EA

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Barter

Applicant

CRA Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Relations Application / Interlocutory (motion to Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for remedy under section 170EA was out of time due to the date of termination notice
  2. 2 Whether the letter of 14 April 1994 constituted adequate written notice of termination as required by section 170EA
  3. 3 Whether CRA Limited was the correct employer named in the application

Ratio Decidendi

The letter of 14 April 1994 was not adequate written notice of termination by the employer in terms of section 170EA, as it failed to clearly identify which entity was acting as employer. Neither party satisfied the court as to the correct employer. Therefore, the respondent's motion to strike out the application based on untimeliness and misidentification of the employer was dismissed.

Court Disposition

motion to strike out dismissed; matter referred for conciliation; directions hearing adjourned

Orders

  • The Motion to strike out is dismissed.
  • The application is referred to the Australian Industrial Relations Commission for conciliation in accordance with the Act.