Carden v Allied Pickfords Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 413

Carden v Allied Pickfords Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 413

The car allowance compensated the applicant for use of his car and was not included in his salary, so it was not treated as relevant wages and the applicant was not excluded from jurisdiction. The Court preferred the applicant's evidence that, on 10 January 1996, Mr Campbell told him they could no longer work...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 1996
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Termination of Employment Application / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders
Outcome
Application upheld; respondent ordered to pay compensation.
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'relevant Wages' 'remuneration' 'car Allowance' 'alleged Resignation' 'valid Reason' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'relevant Wages' 'remuneration' 'car Allowance' 'alleged Resignation' 'valid Reason' 'compensation']

Source-derived case record

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law Termination of Employment Application / Ex Tempore Reasons for Judgment and Minutes of Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the applicant was excluded from the Court's jurisdiction because his relevant wages exceeded the limit set by s170CD of the Industrial Relations Act." 'Whether the applicant resigned or whether there was a termination at the initiative of the employer under s170EA of the Industrial Relations Act.' "Whether the respondent had a valid reason to terminate the applicant's employment under s170DE of the Industrial Relations Act." 'What compensation should be ordered where reinstatement was impracticable.']

Ratio Decidendi

The car allowance compensated the applicant for use of his car and was not included in his salary, so it was not treated as relevant wages and the applicant was not excluded from jurisdiction. The Court preferred the applicant's evidence that, on 10 January 1996, Mr Campbell told him they could no longer work together, requested his resignation, and said he could make life very difficult if the applicant did not resign. That conduct gave the applicant no effective choice and made cessation of employment the probable result, amounting to termination at the initiative of the employer. The respondent had no valid reason to terminate the employment and breached s170DE of the Industrial...

Court Disposition

Application upheld; respondent ordered to pay compensation.

Orders

  • ['The respondent, within 21 days, pay to the applicant the sum of $15,000.00 by way of compensation.']