Devenish v Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd

Devenish (the applicant) sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning the applicant's eligibility for a redundancy payment under the *Long Service Leave Act 1955* (NSW). The AAT had affirmed a decision by the respondent, Jewel Food Stores Pty Ltd (the employer), that the applicant was not entitled to a redundancy payment because his employment had not been terminated by the employer due to redundancy. The applicant argued that the AAT had erred in law by misinterpreting the meaning of "redundancy" as defined in the Act and relevant case law.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the AAT had correctly interpreted and applied the concept of "redundancy" in the context of the *Long Service Leave Act 1955* (NSW). Specifically, the court had to determine if the applicant's dismissal, which arose from the employer's decision to cease operations at a particular store and transfer staff to another location, constituted a redundancy within the meaning of the Act, thereby entitling the applicant to a redundancy payment.

Mason C.J. held that the AAT had erred in its interpretation of redundancy. His Honour explained that redundancy, in the context of employment termination, refers to a situation where an employee's position is no longer required by the employer, irrespective of the employee's performance or conduct. The employer's decision to close the store meant that the applicant's position at that store was no longer required, and this constituted a redundancy. The fact that the employer offered alternative employment at another location did not negate the redundancy of the original position. The appeal was allowed.