LAW LISTS FOR THE SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA FRIDAY, 28 MAY 2021
HOBART
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart Before the FULL COURT 10:00a.m.For Hearing The Honourable Peter Gutwein
v
Tasmanian Industrial Commission
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
10:00am
For Application
Hayden Dean Scott Stone
Court 1, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Justice BRETT
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15pm
For Sentence
Brendan Edward Cotter
Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link
to Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
John David Clinton
Court 8, Salamanca Place, Hobart
Before Acting Justice PORTER
Criminal Jurisdiction
9:30a.m.
For Trial
Kye John Edward Charles Louney
Derek Leslie Graeme Smith
(part-heard)
LAUNCESTON
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Justice PEARCE
Criminal Jurisdiction 11:00am
For Sentence via video link to Risdon Prison Complex
Jack-Harrison Vincent Salder
Court 1, Cameron Street, Launceston
Before Acting Justice MARTIN
Criminal Jurisdiction
2:15p.m.
For Sentencing Submissions via video-link
from Court 7, Salamanca Place, Hobart
John David Clinton
BURNIE
NO LAW LIST FOR BURNIE
Details
- Case
- [2021] TASSCCourtlist 163
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Honourable Peter Gutwein, as the Minister for Health, sought review of a decision of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission which had dismissed his application to have an industrial award varied. The application was brought by the Minister in his capacity as the employer of the respondent, a registered nurse employed by the Tasmanian Department of Health. The case was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The central legal issue before the court was whether the Tasmanian Industrial Commission had erred in law in dismissing the application to vary the award. The Minister argued that changes in the role of the respondent, which had involved more administrative tasks, warranted a variation in the award to reflect the altered nature of the employment.
The court considered the applicable statutory framework governing the powers of the Commission and the scope of its review. It was established that the Commission had discretion to vary awards where there were significant changes in the nature of the employment. The court examined the evidence and submissions to determine whether the changes in the respondent's role were sufficient to warrant an award variation. The court held that the Commission had not erred in its assessment and dismissed the Minister's application. The court found that while there had been some changes in the respondent's role, these did not sufficiently alter the nature of the employment to warrant a variation in the award.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the application for review, affirming the decision of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. The court concluded that the changes in the respondent's role did not reach the threshold required for a variation in the award. The Minister's application was therefore dismissed with no orders for costs.
The court considered the applicable statutory framework governing the powers of the Commission and the scope of its review. It was established that the Commission had discretion to vary awards where there were significant changes in the nature of the employment. The court examined the evidence and submissions to determine whether the changes in the respondent's role were sufficient to warrant an award variation. The court held that the Commission had not erred in its assessment and dismissed the Minister's application. The court found that while there had been some changes in the respondent's role, these did not sufficiently alter the nature of the employment to warrant a variation in the award.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the application for review, affirming the decision of the Tasmanian Industrial Commission. The court concluded that the changes in the respondent's role did not reach the threshold required for a variation in the award. The Minister's application was therefore dismissed with no orders for costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.