Sterling Software (Pacific) Pty Ltd v Chippington [2001] NSWIRComm 214

Sterling Software (Pacific) Pty Ltd v Chippington [2001] NSWIRComm 214

Leave to appeal was refused because Maidment J's conclusions about the unfairness of the severance/redundancy arrangements turned on the particular facts, his approach and findings were reasonably open, and the application was not an appropriate vehicle for considering the broader principles asserted by the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and indemnity costs were refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
31 August 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in Proceedings Brought Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against First Instance Judgments and Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; indemnity costs refused; appellants ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the usual basis; stay lifted.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'redundancy and Severance Payments' 'alternative Employment' 'mitigation of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'redundancy and Severance Payments' 'alternative Employment' 'mitigation of Damages' 'leave to Appeal' 'costs']

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 for Leave to Appeal and Appeal in Proceedings Brought Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against First Instance Judgments and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the trial judge failed to take into account an offer of suitable alternative employment by the appellant.' 'Whether the trial judge failed to take into account principles as to mitigation of damages in assessing the verdict in favour of the respondent.' 'Whether the application raised matters of sufficient importance or principle to warrant leave to appeal.' 'Whether indemnity costs should be ordered in favour of the respondent.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Maidment J's conclusions about the unfairness of the severance/redundancy arrangements turned on the particular facts, his approach and findings were reasonably open, and the application was not an appropriate vehicle for considering the broader principles asserted by the appellant; the appeal was dismissed and indemnity costs were refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appeal dismissed; indemnity costs refused; appellants ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the usual basis; stay lifted.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused.' 'Appeal dismissed.' "The appellants pay the respondent's costs of the appeal in an amount as agreed or, in default of agreement, as assessed." 'The stay granted on 3 April 2001 of the orders made by Schmidt J on 16 March 2001, is lifted.']