Herbert v Star Aviation Services Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 239

Herbert v Star Aviation Services Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 239

The Applicant failed to establish that he was an employee or prospective employee and failed to prove any offer of employment was unconditional and accepted; any withdrawal of an offer was not taken because of family or carer's responsibilities. Costs were awarded against the Applicant due to unreasonable conduct, specifically failure to accept an offer of compromise.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Noel Herbert; First Respondent: Star Aviation Services Pty Ltd (ACN 160 093 630) as Trustee for the Star Aviation Trust; Second Respondent: Peter Georgiou; Third Respondent: Peter Cornell
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2019
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Adverse Action, Family or Carer's Responsibilities, Costs, Offer of Compromise
Industrial Law Employment Law Discrimination Adverse Action Family or Carer's Responsibilities Costs Offer of Compromise

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Noel Herbert

Applicant

Star Aviation Services Pty Ltd (ACN 160 093 630) as Trustee for the Star Aviation Trust

First Respondent

Peter Georgiou

Second Respondent

Peter Cornell

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents discriminated against the Applicant on the basis of his family or carer's responsibilities
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant was an employee or prospective employee
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents took adverse action against the Applicant

Ratio Decidendi

The Applicant failed to establish that he was an employee or prospective employee and failed to prove any offer of employment was unconditional and accepted; any withdrawal of an offer was not taken because of family or carer's responsibilities. Costs were awarded against the Applicant due to unreasonable conduct, specifically failure to accept an offer of compromise.

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed

Orders

  • The proceeding is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondents as from 8 August 2018, as agreed or assessed.