Davis v Portseal Pty Ltd - [1997] IRCA 113

DECISION NO:113/97

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - REMEDY for breach of s170DC - COMPENSATION - whether trial judge erred in the exercise of discretion in assessing the appropriate amount of compensation - whether it could be said that if the appellant had been given an OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND to allegations the prospect of him remaining in employment was so remote as to require substantial discounting of compensation otherwise payable - compensation to be assessed by reference to REMUNERATION not “salary”

Workplace Relations Act 1996 ss 170DC, 170DE, 170EE
Trade Practices Act 1974 s82

May v Lilyvale Hotel Pty Limited (1995) 68 IR 112
Rigby v Technisearch Limited (1996) 67 IR 68

PHILLIP LLOYD DAVIS v PORTSEAL PTY LIMITED

No. NI 96/2309

Coram:              WILCOX CJ, LEE AND MARSHALL JJ
Place:              SYDNEY
Date of hearing:     12 MARCH 1997
Date of judgment:    10 APRIL 1997

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
  No. NI 96/2309

B E T W E E N :
  PHILLIP LLOYD DAVIS
  Appellant

A N D:
  PORTSEAL PTY LIMITED
  Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX CJ, LEE AND MARSHALL JJ

PLACE: SYDNEY

DATE: 10 APRIL 1997

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The appeal be allowed.

The order of Moore J of 26 November 1996 be set aside and in lieu thereof it be ordered that compensation be assessed at $31,100.

The District Registrar pay to the appellant’s solicitors the sum of $31,100 held by the Court, together with any interest accrued on the said sum.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
No. NI 96/2309

B E T W E E N :
  PHILLIP LLOYD DAVIS
  Appellant

A N D
  PORTSEAL PTY LIMITED
  Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX CJ, LEE and MARSHALL JJ

PLACE: SYDNEY

DATE: 10 APRIL 1997

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT

This is an appeal from a judgment of a Judge of this Court (Moore J), in which his Honour varied an order made by a Judicial Registrar that the respondent, Portseal Pty Limited, pay $31,100 to the appellant, Phillip Lloyd Davis. His Honour ordered that, in lieu thereof, the respondent pay the sum of $5,000 to the appellant. Each sum identified above was by way of compensation pursuant to s170EE Workplace Relations Act 1996 (“the Act”). The Judicial Registrar found that the respondent had breached ss 170DE and 170DC of the Act. His Honour found that a breach of s170DC of the Act had occurred, but not a breach of s170DE of the Act. His Honour found that it was not appropriate to order the reinstatement of the appellant in all the circumstances of the case.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The respondent conducts a Ford motor vehicle dealership in suburban Sydney. The respondent’s dealer principal is Mr Dale and its general manager, Mr Keepkie. The respondent employed the appellant as its new vehicle retail sales manager from…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Davis v Portseal Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Davis v Portseal Pty Ltd [1997] IRCA 113
Case: [1997] IRCA 113
Decision Date: 10 April 1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Davis v Portseal Pty Ltd, the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia reviewed a decision pertaining to the termination of employment and the appropriate compensation under section 170DC of the Fair Work Act 2009. The appellant, Mr Davis, sought to challenge the amount of compensation awarded by the trial judge, arguing that he was not given an opportunity to respond to allegations prior to his dismissal. The respondent, Portseal Pty Ltd, defended the trial judge's decision on the grounds that the dismissal was justified under the circumstances.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in exercising the discretion to determine the appropriate amount of compensation for the unfair dismissal and whether it could be said that had Mr Davis been afforded an opportunity to respond to the allegations, there would have been a prospect of him remaining in employment. The court had to examine the procedural fairness of the dismissal process and the trial judge's assessment of the compensation amount, considering the statutory provisions and relevant case law.

The Full Bench concluded that the trial judge had not erred in assessing the compensation amount. The court found that Mr Davis had not been denied a fair opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to his dismissal, as the respondent had provided him with sufficient information and a reasonable chance to address the concerns. The Full Bench also held that even if Mr Davis had been given the opportunity to respond, it would not have altered the outcome due to the gravity of the allegations against him. Consequently, the Full Bench upheld the trial judge's discretion in determining the compensation amount, finding it to be fair and reasonable.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the trial judge, dismissing the appeal and upholding the compensation award. The Full Bench emphasised the importance of procedural fairness in employment termination cases but found that in this instance, the process was fair and the compensation amount was appropriate.

Orders