Spiteri v Monocure Pty Ltd - [1995] IRCA 299

INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - Claim of UNLAWFUL TERMINATION - Application by employer for review of decision of JUDICIAL REGISTRAR - Complaint of conduct of Judicial Registrar at hearing - Alleged excessive intervention and partiality - Complaints not justified - Employer disavowed review by Judge of correctness of Judicial Registrar's findings - Application for review dismissed.

Industrial Relations Act 1988, s377.

JOSEPH SPITERI v. MONOCURE PTY LTD

No. NI. 653R of 1994

CORAM:    WILCOX CJ
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATE:     30 JUNE 1995

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT)
OF AUSTRALIA ) No. NI. 653R of 1994
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)

BETWEEN: JOSEPH SPITERI

Applicant

AND:MONOCURE PTY LTD

Respondent

CORAM:    WILCOX CJ
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATE:     30 JUNE 1995

MINUTES OF ORDER

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

The application for judicial review be dismissed.

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

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT)
OF AUSTRALIA ) No. NI. 653R of 1994
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)

BETWEEN: JOSEPH SPITERI

Applicant

AND:MONOCURE PTY LTD

Respondent

CORAM:    WILCOX CJ
PLACE:    SYDNEY
DATE:     30 JUNE 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX CJ: This is an application for review of a decision of a Judicial Registrar of the Court in an unlawful termination case brought under Division 3 of Part VIA of the Industrial Relations Act 1988. Contrary to the case of the employer, Monocure Pty Limited, the Judicial Registrar found that the employment of the employee, Joseph Spiteri, was terminated by the employer, not the employee. She also found that the termination breached the requirements of s.170DC (procedural fairness) and s.170DE (substantive fairness) of the Act. She found that reinstatement was impracticable and ordered payment of compensation.

Mr J Hassett, the solicitor for the employer, the applicant for review, presented his case in an unusual way. He did not wish to challenge before me the Judicial Registrar's findings of fact. He wished to attack the manner in which she conducted the proceedings and to argue that the trial miscarried, so that the Judicial Registrar's order should be set aside and the matter remitted for trial before another Judicial Registrar.

During the course of discussion, I pointed out to Mr Hassett that s.377 of the Act provided for review by a Judge of a Judicial Registrar's exercise of power and this allowed a full recanvassing of the facts; I was not bound by the Judicial Registrar's findings. I inquired what were the outstanding issues in the case and offered to resolve them. Mr Hassett replied that the only live issue was the question whether the employer or the employee terminated the employment. He referred to a letter of termination given to Mr Spiteri by his client but said this did not represent the true position. He said that, in order to determine this issue, it was necessary to make findings about a particular conversation involving Mr Spiteri, on the one hand, and two officers of his client, Mr Anderson and Mr Jackson, on…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Spiteri v Monocure Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1995] IRCA 299
Decision Date: 30 June 1995

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Spiteri v Monocure Pty Ltd involved an application by the employer for a review of a decision made by a Judicial Registrar in an unlawful termination of employment case. The Judicial Registrar had ruled in favour of the employee, and the employer sought a review of that decision on the grounds of alleged misconduct by the Judicial Registrar, including excessive intervention and partiality. The employer argued that the Judicial Registrar's conduct during the hearing had been inappropriate and prejudicial, thereby affecting the outcome of the case.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the employer's complaints about the conduct of the Judicial Registrar were justified. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether the Judicial Registrar's intervention in the proceedings was excessive or whether the Judicial Registrar had exhibited partiality towards the employee. The court also needed to consider whether the employer's application for review was properly before the court and whether the Judicial Registrar's decision should be set aside.

The court found that the employer's complaints about the Judicial Registrar's conduct were not justified. The court held that the Judicial Registrar's intervention in the proceedings was appropriate and that the Judicial Registrar had not exhibited any partiality towards the employee. The court further found that the employer's application for review was properly before the court, but the complaints made by the employer did not provide grounds for setting aside the Judicial Registrar's decision. The court held that the Judicial Registrar's decision was correct and that the employer's application for review should be dismissed. The court also found that the employer's complaints about the Judicial Registrar's conduct did not warrant any further action.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the employer's application for review and upheld the Judicial Registrar's decision in favour of the employee. The court held that the employer's complaints about the Judicial Registrar's conduct were not justified and did not affect the outcome of the case. The employer was ordered to pay the employee's costs of the application for review.

Orders