Robert Bruce Henman v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] IRCA 101

Robert Bruce Henman v Westpac Banking Corporation [1995] IRCA 101

Moore J assumed, without finally deciding, that jurisdiction existed to grant the interlocutory relief sought, but refused the injunction on discretionary grounds. If the applicant's employment was terminated and he later succeeded under s170EA, the statutory remedy of reinstatement would place him in essentially the same position as his present employment, and the anxiety, demoralising effect and uncertainty associated with prospective termination did not provide a sufficient basis for interlocutory relief.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 1995
Procedural Posture
Application Under S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act for Relief Concerning Termination of Employment, With Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application to Restrain Termination of Employment
Outcome
Interlocutory injunction refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Injunction' 'termination of Employment' 'jurisdiction to Grant Injunctive Relief' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'reinstatement Remedy' 'alleged Breach of Contract']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'equity' 'contract Law'] ['interlocutory Injunction' 'termination of Employment' 'jurisdiction to Grant Injunctive Relief' 'associated Jurisdiction' 'reinstatement Remedy' 'alleged Breach of Contract']

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 S170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act for Relief Concerning Termination of Employment, With Notice of Motion for Interlocutory Injunction / Interlocutory Application to Restrain Termination of Employment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Court had jurisdiction to grant an interlocutory injunction restraining Westpac from terminating the applicant's employment." "Whether s170EH denied or limited the Court's power under s431, s361(2) and s419 to restrain a termination alleged to contravene the Industrial Relations Act." 'Whether the Court could restrain an alleged breach of contract in a cause of action arising in its associated jurisdiction.' 'Whether interlocutory injunctive relief should be refused on discretionary grounds because reinstatement was available if the applicant succeeded under s170EA.']

Ratio Decidendi

Moore J assumed, without finally deciding, that jurisdiction existed to grant the interlocutory relief sought, but refused the injunction on discretionary grounds. If the applicant's employment was terminated and he later succeeded under s170EA, the statutory remedy of reinstatement would place him in essentially the same position as his present employment, and the anxiety, demoralising effect and uncertainty associated with prospective termination did not provide a sufficient basis for interlocutory relief.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory injunction refused.

Orders

  • ["The application for an interlocutory injunction restraining Westpac from terminating the applicant's employment was refused."]