Saitanis v Penrith City Night Patrol [1996] IRCA 656

Saitanis v Penrith City Night Patrol [1996] IRCA 656

Because there was no effective reinstatement order after the applicant declined re-employment, compensation had to be assessed under section 170EE(2) having regard to the matters in section 170EE(3). Although the applicant had suffered considerable financial loss from the unlawful termination, his evidence of attempts to obtain other employment was limited and showed he had not pursued employment as vigorously as expected, so compensation of $12,000 was appropriate rather than the Judicial Registrar's back pay figure.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 December 1996
Procedural Posture
Review of an Exercise of Power by a Judicial Registrar Dealing With an Application Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Court Review of Its Own Motion Concerning Compensation After a Reinstatement Order Was Refused by the Employee
Outcome
The Court ordered compensation for the applicant in the sum of $12,000 under section 170EE(2).
Legal Topics
['termination of Employment' 'compensation' 'reinstatement' 'review of Judicial Registrar Decision']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['termination of Employment' 'compensation' 'reinstatement' 'review of Judicial Registrar Decision']

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

Review of an Exercise of Power by a Judicial Registrar Dealing With an Application Under Section 170 EA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 / Court Review of Its Own Motion Concerning Compensation After a Reinstatement Order Was Refused by the Employee

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What amount of compensation, if any, should be ordered under section 170EE(2) after the Judicial Registrar found the termination contravened the Act and the employee declined reinstatement.' "How income lost as a result of termination and the applicant's attempts to obtain further employment should affect compensation."]

Ratio Decidendi

Because there was no effective reinstatement order after the applicant declined re-employment, compensation had to be assessed under section 170EE(2) having regard to the matters in section 170EE(3). Although the applicant had suffered considerable financial loss from the unlawful termination, his evidence of attempts to obtain other employment was limited and showed he had not pursued employment as vigorously as expected, so compensation of $12,000 was appropriate rather than the Judicial Registrar's back pay figure.

Court Disposition

The Court ordered compensation for the applicant in the sum of $12,000 under section 170EE(2).

Orders

  • ['The respondent pay the applicant the sum of $12,000.00 by way of compensation under section 170EE(2).']