Kenna v I.A.E IndustriesPpty Limited - [1996] IRCA 289

DECISION NO: 289/96

CATCHWORDS

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - COURT -JURISDICTION - ACCRUED JURISDICTION - JUDICIAL REGISTRAR

Industrial Relations Act 1988: Ss. 170EA 179 376 378(1)
Industrial Relations Court Rules: Order 74 Rule 2

Coulson v. Thomas Cook Limited, unreported, Judgment 66/1996, 5 March 1996

JOHN KENNA V I.A.E. INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 005 101 075)
JEAN KENNA V I.A.E. INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 005 101 075)

No. NI 4992 of 1996 and
NI 4993 of 1996

CORAM:     LINKENBAGH JR
PLACE:       SYDNEY
DATE:          2 JULY   1996

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

NI 4992 of 1995

BETWEEN:

John KENNA
Applicant

AND

I.A.E. INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 005 101 075)
Respondent

CORAM:     Judicial Registrar Linkenbagh
PLACE:       Sydney
DATE:          24 June 1996

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The matter is to be heard together with NI95/4993 of 1995.
In respect of the subpoena to Insolvency Trustee Services Australia I         grant leave to both parties to inspect the documents produced.
In respect of the subpoena to the Principal Registrar of the Licensing          Court of New South Wales I note that there is no response to that      subpoena.
The name of the respondent is amended by consent to I.A.E. Industries      Pty Limited (A.C.N.005 101 075)
I direct that pursuant to the provisions of Section 378(1) of the Act I shall make arrangements for the Court to hear this application.
I direct the Registrar to notify the parties of the arrangements made pursuant to Order 5.

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

NI 4993 of 1995

BETWEEN:

Jean KENNA
Applicant

AND

I.A.E. INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (A.C.N. 005 101 075)
Respondent

CORAM:     Judicial Registrar Linkenbagh
PLACE:       Sydney
DATE:          24 June 1996

MINUTES OF ORDERS

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

That the matter is to be heard with NI95/4992.
That the name of the respondent be amended by consent to I.A.E. Industries Pty Limited (A.C.N. 005 101 075).
I direct that pursuant to the provisions of Section 378(1) of the Act I shall make arrangements for the Court to hear this application.
I direct the Registrar to notify the parties of the arrangements made pursuant to paragraph 3.

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

NI 4992 and 4993 of 1995

BETWEEN:

John KENNA
Jean KENNA
Applicants

AND

I.A.E. INDUSTRIES PTY LIMITED (A.C.N.005 101 075)
Respondent

CORAM:     Judicial Registrar Linkenbagh
PLACE:       Sydney
DATE:          24 June 1996

REASONS FOR DECISION
Delivered extempore and revised from the transcript

The Orders that I make today in proceedings NI95/4992 are as follows:

The matter is to be heard together with NI95/4993 of 1995.
In respect of the subpoena to Insolvency Trustee Services Australia I grant leave to both parties to inspect the documents produced.
In…

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 Kenna v I.A.E IndustriesPpty Limited

Details

AGLC: Kenna v I.A.E IndustriesPpty Limited [1996] IRCA 289
Case: [1996] IRCA 289
Decision Date: 02 July 1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Kenna, brought an action against the respondent, I.A.E Industries Pty Limited, in the Federal Circuit Court, challenging the termination of their employment. The dispute centred on whether the termination was lawful and if the Court had the jurisdiction to hear the case. The respondent argued that the Court had no jurisdiction as the termination was not an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The applicant contended that the Court had jurisdiction to hear the case and that the termination was unlawful.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it had accrued jurisdiction to hear the matter, given that the termination was not an unfair dismissal as defined by the Fair Work Act. The Court had to determine if the Fair Work Act conferred jurisdiction on the Court to hear the case. The Court also needed to consider whether the termination was lawful and whether the applicant had standing to bring the action.

The Court held that it did not have accrued jurisdiction to hear the case as the termination was not an unfair dismissal within the meaning of the Fair Work Act. The Court found that the Fair Work Act did not confer jurisdiction on the Court to hear the case. The Court further found that the applicant did not have standing to bring the action as the termination was not an unfair dismissal. The Court dismissed the application for want of jurisdiction.

The Court ordered that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs of the proceeding. The Court found that the respondent was entitled to costs as the applicant’s claim was frivolous and vexatious. The Court held that the respondent was entitled to costs on an indemnity basis.

Orders