Robert Howarth and Newland Australia Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 363

Robert Howarth and Newland Australia Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 363

The applicant's termination was harsh, unjust and unlawful because proper consultation did not occur, the applicant was not given any opportunity to respond to allegations or discuss alternatives, and procedural fairness required by S170DC and S170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 was denied. Compensation, rather than reinstatement, was appropriate due to the impracticability of reinstatement in the circumstances.

Parties
Applicant: Robert Howarth; Respondent: Newland Australia Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 1995
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law – Unlawful Termination of Employment / Judgment After Hearing
Outcome
Compensation ordered in lieu of reinstatement
Legal Topics
Unlawful Termination, Redundancy, Procedural Fairness, Compensation
Industrial Law Employment Law Unlawful Termination Redundancy Procedural Fairness 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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Howarth

Applicant

Newland Australia Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Industrial Law – Unlawful Termination of Employment / Judgment After Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's employment was unlawfully terminated
  2. 2 Whether proper consultation or procedural fairness was afforded before termination
  3. 3 Whether compensation or reinstatement is the appropriate remedy

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's termination was harsh, unjust and unlawful because proper consultation did not occur, the applicant was not given any opportunity to respond to allegations or discuss alternatives, and procedural fairness required by S170DC and S170DE of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 was denied. Compensation, rather than reinstatement, was appropriate due to the impracticability of reinstatement in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Compensation ordered in lieu of reinstatement

Orders

  • The respondent pay to the applicant compensation in the sum of $12,000, with $4,000 immediately, $4,000 by 10 October 1995, and the remaining $4,000 by 10 December 1995.