10 Mar 2023
Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed grounds did not raise questions of law of general or public importance and the Employment Court's factual findings (including attribution of conduct under s 142ZA and the reasonableness of the employee's belief of dismissal) were open to the Judge; accordingly no arguable error of law was established.
8 Nov 2021
The application to recall the Court's prior judgment is dismissed because the memorandum did not advance any material grounds—such as new evidence, demonstrable error, or fraud—to justify recalling the judgment.
28 Jun 2019
The Court declined the application for interim orders and held that any steps the Navy might take between this judgment and final determination cannot have any bearing on the merits of the substantive argument or on the scope of any relief; reasons to follow.
6 Dec 2018
Leave to appeal was declined because the proposed grounds were either factual findings open to the Employment Court or legal questions lacking general or public importance; the Employment Court did not err in law on justification for dismissal, scope of s 4(1A)(c), personal grievance threshold for removal/supervision of duties, or interpretation of the indemnity clause.
20 Sept 2017
The appeal was dismissed because the appellants failed to demonstrate any reversible error in the lower court's decision; therefore the Court affirmed the outcome below.
24 Jun 2016
The recall application was dismissed because it merely reiterated grounds already advanced in the earlier leave application and did not introduce any new material or argument to warrant recall.
1 Dec 2015
Leave to appeal was declined because no seriously arguable question of law was established: the Employment Court applied the correct legal tests (including Ramsbottom and s4 good faith) and its factual findings that the employee was dismissed and that the employer's later offer was not bona fide were open on the evidence.
15 Oct 2015
The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to take the required steps to advance the appeal within the time specified in the court's minute and effectively indicated he did not wish to proceed.
31 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal denied because the applicant failed to formulate a proper question of law under s214 and the Employment Court's factual findings established that the ultimate decision-maker was impartial and the dismissal decision was not vitiated by bias, so there was no question of law of sufficient general or public importance to justify appeal.
22 Jun 2015
The application for recall is dismissed because the grounds advanced did not add anything of substance to the earlier submissions supporting the leave judgment and therefore did not justify recalling the Court's prior decision.