CPSU, Community & Public Sector Union v State of Victoria [2000] FCA 786

CPSU, Community & Public Sector Union v State of Victoria [2000] FCA 786

The applicants did not satisfy their onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that Mr Maloney made any threat to Mr Murrell or Mr Hutchins or that the alleged conversation occurred, so the application concerning paragraph 42 of the amended statement of claim was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application Alleging Contravention of S298 K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Supplementary Reasons on Issue Remitted From the Full Court
Outcome
Application dismissed insofar as it concerns the issue raised at paragraph 42 of the amended statement of claim.
Legal Topics
['workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S298 K' 'alleged Threat to Dismiss Employees' 'onus of Proof' 'balance of Probabilities' 'casual Employment']
['industrial Law'] ['workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) S298 K' 'alleged Threat to Dismiss Employees' 'onus of Proof' 'balance of Probabilities' 'casual Employment']

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

Industrial Law Application Alleging Contravention of S298 K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) / Supplementary Reasons on Issue Remitted From the Full Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent contravened s298K of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) by threatening to dismiss Mr Murrell and Mr Hutchins.' 'Whether the alleged threat by Mr Maloney was made on the balance of probabilities.' 'Whether the applicants satisfied their onus of proving the alleged conduct.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not satisfy their onus of proving on the balance of probabilities that Mr Maloney made any threat to Mr Murrell or Mr Hutchins or that the alleged conversation occurred, so the application concerning paragraph 42 of the amended statement of claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed insofar as it concerns the issue raised at paragraph 42 of the amended statement of claim.

Orders

  • ['The application, insofar as it concerns the issue raised at par 42 of the amended statement of claim, be dismissed.']