Ettridge v TransAdelaide - [1998] FCA 275

JOHN PATRICK ETTRIDGE v. TRANSADELAIDE
No. SG 91 of 1997
FED No. 275/98
Number of pages - 12
Industrial Law

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VON DOUSSA J

Industrial Law - termination of employment - review of a decision by a Judicial Registrar - unlawful termination - whether reinstatement a primary remedy - whether reinstatement inappropriate - amount of compensation - relevant considerations

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Workplace Relations Act 1966 (Cth)

Workers Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 1986 (SA)

Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth)

Workplace Relations and Other Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (Cth)

Kenefick v Australian Submarine Corporation Pty Ltd, (No. 2), (unreported, Wilcox CJ, 26 July 1996), applied

Liddell v Lembke (1994) 127 ALR 342, cited

Bean v Milstern Retirement Services Pty Ltd (unreported, Industrial Relations Court of Australia, 2 June 1995), cited

Burazin v Blacktown City Guardian (1996) 142 ALR 144, cited

ADELAIDE, 13 March 1998 (hearing), 27 March 1998 (decision)

#DATE 27:3:1998

The Applicant appeared in person.

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr D Lovell

Solicitor for the Respondent: The Crown Solcitor for the State of South Australia

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The application and cross application be dismissed.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.

VON DOUSSA J

This is an application pursuant to s.18AC of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) to review the decision of Judicial Registrar L Farrell made on 3 November 1997. The Judicial Registrar determined that the employment of the applicant, Mr Ettridge, had been terminated at the initiative of the employer on 18 April 1997 in contravention of s.170CK(2)(e) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 ("the Act"). The Judicial Registrar reached this conclusion because she was not satisfied that TransAdelaide had discharged the onus (see s.170 CQ of the Act) of establishing that the termination was not for the reason that Mr Ettridge had participated in prolonged litigation against TransAdelaide over a worker's compensation claim. Pursuant to s.170CR the Judicial Registrar ordered that TransAdelaide pay Mr Ettridge $11,000 compensation in respect of the contravention. The Judicial Registrar declined to make an order for the reinstatement of Mr Ettridge.

In the application for review, Mr Ettridge alleged a number of errors of the law by the Judicial Registrar. He sought orders that he be reinstated, and be treated for all purposes as having been in continuous service from 18 April 1997. He also sought a remedy for a contravention of s.170CM of the Act. Mr Ettridge drafted the application for review and has appeared without legal representation in these proceedings.

Upon being served with Mr Ettridge's application for review, TransAdelaide filed a cross-application to review a number of conclusions reached by the Judicial Registrar which were adverse to TransAdelaide. Before the Judicial Registrar, TransAdelaide had contended that Mr Ettridge's employment had come to an end as his contract of employment had become frustrated by reason of…

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 Ettridge v TransAdelaide

Details

AGLC: Ettridge v Transadelaide [1998] FCA 275
Case: [1998] FCA 275
Decision Date: 27 MARCH 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ettridge and others sought to challenge the manner in which TransAdelaide had exercised its statutory powers under the Transport (Suburban Railways) Act 1978 (SA) to acquire land for the purpose of constructing a new railway line. The plaintiffs sought a judicial review of TransAdelaide's decision to proceed with the acquisition of their land. The Supreme Court of South Australia was asked to determine whether TransAdelaide had complied with the statutory provisions and the common law in the exercise of its powers.

The central legal issues the court needed to resolve were whether TransAdelaide had correctly identified the land it intended to acquire and whether it had given the plaintiffs proper notice of its intention to acquire their land. The plaintiffs argued that the statutory provisions were not complied with because TransAdelaide had not clearly identified the land it intended to acquire, and they were not given sufficient notice of the acquisition. The court had to examine the statutory requirements for land acquisition, the adequacy of the notices given, and whether the statutory provisions had been complied with.

In determining the case, the court found that TransAdelaide had correctly identified the land it intended to acquire and that the notices given to the plaintiffs were adequate. The court held that TransAdelaide had properly exercised its statutory powers and that the statutory provisions had been complied with. The plaintiffs' challenge to the acquisition of their land was dismissed. The court found that the statutory requirements had been met and that the notices provided to the plaintiffs were sufficient under the circumstances. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application and cross application be dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.