17 Jun 2020
Leave to appeal denied because the proposed appeal did not raise a question of law of general or public importance; the Employment Court correctly applied the s103A reasonableness test and its factual assessment that the employer's investigation and conclusions were within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer was not a matter for this Court to revisit on leave.
7 Sept 2016
The Employment Court applied an incorrect legal approach by treating 'even‑handedness' as requiring identical, commensurate levels of testing of all witnesses and thereby imposing rigid investigatory rules; the correct approach under s 103A is an objective, contextual assessment of what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. Accordingly the Employment Court's orders of reinstatement, wages and compensation were set aside and the matter remitted for remedy determination.
11 Nov 2014
The Court of Appeal held that the Employment Court applied the correct legal test under s 103A (pre‑2011): the inquiry is objective and asks whether the employer's actions and manner were what a fair and reasonable employer would have done in all circumstances, including compliance with s 4 disclosure and consultation obligations; on the facts the Employment Court correctly found GTA's dismissal unjustified because it proceeded on materially erroneous financial information, failed to provide adequate information and explanation for selection, and acted precipitously; the Employment Court appl…
24 Jul 2009
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court must determine as a question of law whether, on the facts found by the Employment Court, the contract could properly be found to be frustrated so that there was no dismissal and s 103A therefore had no application; the matter raises questions of public importance requiring appellate determination.