Richard Hiscock v Expo Solutions Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 502

Richard Hiscock v Expo Solutions Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 502

The Court preferred the Applicant's evidence that May told him he would not be paid in May and did not know when he would be paid, and found that the Applicant's statement that he would have to find alternative employment was a response to that repudiatory conduct rather than a resignation. The Respondent therefore terminated the Applicant's employment, the Court had jurisdiction, and because the Respondent accepted there was no valid reason under s.170DE(1), compensation was awarded for lost remuneration assessed at $7,300.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Judgment Delivered Ex Tempore and Final Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; compensation awarded to the Applicant.
Legal Topics
['unlawful Termination' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'resignation' 'compensation']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['unlawful Termination' 'termination at the Initiative of the Employer' 'resignation' 'compensation']

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

Procedural Posture

Application Under Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act Alleging Unlawful Termination / Reasons for Judgment Delivered Ex Tempore and Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Applicant resigned on 10 May 1995 or whether his employment was terminated at the initiative of the Respondent.' 'Whether the Court had jurisdiction under Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act.' "What compensation should be awarded after the finding that the Respondent terminated the Applicant's employment without a valid reason."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court preferred the Applicant's evidence that May told him he would not be paid in May and did not know when he would be paid, and found that the Applicant's statement that he would have to find alternative employment was a response to that repudiatory conduct rather than a resignation. The Respondent therefore terminated the Applicant's employment, the Court had jurisdiction, and because the Respondent accepted there was no valid reason under s.170DE(1), compensation was awarded for lost remuneration assessed at $7,300.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; compensation awarded to the Applicant.

Orders

  • ['That the Respondent pay to the Applicant the sum of $7,300 within 21 days.']