27 Aug 2013
Leave to appeal declined because the contested issues were factual matters properly resolved by the Employment Court and its findings were supported by evidence; no question of law of general or public importance arose and the Bryson threshold for appeal on law was not met.
15 May 2006
Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed grounds failed to disclose any genuinely arguable question of law or prospects of success: on the facts (Asure never provided facilities, AFFCO controlled facilities, shared facilities common) there was no basis to imply a contractual term and no error in the Employment Court's safety findings.
1 Aug 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the Employment Court's decision was an application of s61 to the facts (finding that individual job-and-finish terms existed by mutual agreement) and did not involve the implication of terms or a novel question of law; the issues raised did not meet the s214 threshold of general or public importance or other reason to warrant this Court's intervention.