Federal Court of Australia
JUDGMENT NO. somes al ox ccLnen
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY Nos. V. 20 and 21 of 1983
we eee we
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
BETWEEN
IAN SEYMOUR
Applicant
AND
STAWELL TIMBER INDUSTRIES PROPRIETARY LIMITED
(RECEIVER AND MANAGER APPOINTED)
Respondent
19 NOVEMBER, 1984 KEELY J.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Ian Seymour (the applicant), an inspector appointed under the Conciliation and Arbitration Act 1904 (the Act), has brought two applications under s. 119 of the Act. Each application seeks the imposition of a penalty upon Stawell Timber Industries Proprietary Limited (Receiver and Manager appointed) (the respondent) for allegedly breaching the Carpenters and Joiners Award 1967 (the award) on 11 occasions in successive weeks commencing on 29 June, 1978 and concluding on 7 September, 1978. Each of the alleged breaches consists of a failure to pay to an apprentice (Mr. Timothy John Hughes in matter V. 20 of 1983 and Mr. Geoffrey Miller in matter V. 21 of 1983) all wages, allowances and other monies ... due to the said employee pursuant to Clause
E35 Part III and the Industrial Training (Carpentry and
2.
Joinery Trades Apprenticeship) (Amendment) Regulations 1977 not later than the time of cessation of work on that day
contrary to the provisions of Clause £30 of the Award."
On 7 November, 1983 the respondent's solicitors filed points of defence in which the respondent made no admissions, save for the incorporation of the respondent. It denied that it was bound by the award and contended further that "it was not bound by the Award by operation of law", giving as particulars that a receiver and manager- of the respondent was duly appointed on 12 June, 1978. Relying upon the same particulars, it also contended that each of the two apprenticeships "was determined by operation of law" on or about 12 June, 1978, "alternatively suspended by operation of law" between 29 June, 1978 and 7 September, 1978. If I were required to decide the issue raised by that defence it would be my opinion on the basis of the authorities cited to me by the applicant, that the appointment of a receiver and manager, as particularized, did not determine the two
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate