Poynton v Animal Supplies (Wholesales) Pty Ltd

Desmond Poynton, the applicant, filed a claim against Animal Supplies (Wholesales) Pty Ltd, the respondent, for unlawful termination of employment. The applicant sought reinstatement and compensation, but later conceded that reinstatement was impractical. The court allowed an extension of time for the application, which was 16 days late, based on the principles set out in Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen and TWU v National Dairy Limited. The court found that the applicant's sales performance was poor, and he sold products in competition with the employer, which constituted a breach of his contract of employment. The court held that there was a valid reason for the termination of employment and that the respondent's investigation was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the court found that the respondent breached section 170DC by not giving the applicant an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations. Nevertheless, the court dismissed the application for relief for unlawful termination of employment, as the allegations were well founded, and there were no factors that would persuade the employer that termination was inappropriate. The court also held that it was not appropriate in the circumstances to order compensation for the technical breach of section 170DC.
The court ordered that the application is dismissed. The settlement and entry of orders are dealt with by Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules. The applicant's solicitors were Macpherson & Kelley, and the applicant's counsel were Mr Peter Harris and Mr Gordon Jervis, Senior Industrial Advocate, Australian Business Chamber. The respondent appeared for itself. The hearing dates were 27 August 1996 and 24 September 1996, and the date of judgment was 11 February 1997.