Westbus Pty Ltd v Bartush [2000] NSWIRComm 26

Westbus Pty Ltd v Bartush [2000] NSWIRComm 26

The respondent failed to establish on the balance of probabilities, with sufficient evidence, that his termination of employment was motivated by domestic or other pressing necessity as required by s 4(2)(a)(iii) of the Long Service Leave Act 1955, and the decision of the industrial magistrate was in error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 March 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Full Bench Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
['long Service Leave' 'domestic or Pressing Necessity' 'appeal Procedures']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law'] ['long Service Leave' 'domestic or Pressing Necessity' 'appeal Procedures']

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

Appeal / Full Bench Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the respondent's termination of employment was on account of 'domestic or other pressing necessity' under s 4(2)(a)(iii) of the Long Service Leave Act 1955" "Whether the loss of income and inability to collect children from school constituted 'domestic or other pressing necessity'" 'Whether leave to appeal is required and should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to establish on the balance of probabilities, with sufficient evidence, that his termination of employment was motivated by domestic or other pressing necessity as required by s 4(2)(a)(iii) of the Long Service Leave Act 1955, and the decision of the industrial magistrate was in error.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is granted.' 'The appeal is allowed.' 'The decision of the Local Court given on 14 July 1998 and consequent orders are quashed.' 'The subject complaint and summons before the Local Court are dismissed.' 'Each party to bear its own costs at first instance and of the appeal.']