Qureshi v De Haas (No 2) [2009] NSWIRComm 139

Qureshi v De Haas (No 2) [2009] NSWIRComm 139

Leave to appeal was refused as no substantial issue of principle or law was raised. The appellant sought to challenge findings of fact and the exercise of discretion, which were reasonably open to the trial judge. There was no error in law or process justifying leave to appeal.

Parties
Appellant: Zia Qureshi; Respondent: Eric De Haas
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Unfair Contracts, Procedural Fairness, Employment Termination, Notice of Termination, Employee Share Schemes, Costs
Employment Law Industrial Law Unfair Contracts Procedural Fairness Employment Termination Notice of Termination Employee Share Schemes 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 2 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zia Qureshi

Appellant

Eric De Haas

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal / Decision on Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons for her decision
  2. 2 Whether there was a proper basis for the notice period awarded
  3. 3 Whether the bonus (unit trust) scheme was unfair

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused as no substantial issue of principle or law was raised. The appellant sought to challenge findings of fact and the exercise of discretion, which were reasonably open to the trial judge. There was no error in law or process justifying leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • Leave to appeal is refused.
  • The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of the appeal in an amount assessed under the Legal Profession Act 2004, in default of agreement.