Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA INDUSTRIAL LAW - TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - reinstatement of APPLICATION - exercise of discretion - intent of parties in making consent order - whether application brought in a timely manner - possible prejudice to respondent - Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) s170EA IZETA TANOVIC & APESMA v H J HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LTD VI 2305 of 1996 Before: PARKINSON JR Place: MELBOURNE Date of Hearing: 8 OCTOBER 1997 Date of Judgment: 13 OCTOBER 1997
IN THE industrial relations
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 2305 of 1996
BETWEEN: IZETA TANOVIC
First Applicant
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS OF AUSTRALIA
Second Applicant
AND: H J HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: PARKINSON JR
DATE OF ORDER: 13 OCTOBER 1997
WHERE MADE: MELBOURNE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The applicant's Notice of Motion filed on 11 September, 1997 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
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY VI 2305 of 1996
BETWEEN: IZETA TANOVIC
First Applicant
ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, SCIENTISTS AND MANAGERS OF AUSTRALIA
Second Applicant
AND: H J HEINZ COMPANY AUSTRALIA LTD
Respondent
JUDGE: PARKINSON JR
DATE: 13 OCTOBER 1997
PLACE: MELBOURNE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT This is my decision on an application made to reinstate proceedings brought pursuant to Section 170EA of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth). ('the Act') The application was originally listed for trial on 24 and 25 February, 1997. On 21 February, 1997 consent orders were filed by the parties in the following terms: "1. The matter be struck out with right of reinstatement." On 11 September, 1997 the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking that the proceeding be reinstated. Whilst the terms of the consent orders were that the proceedings be struck out with a right of reinstatement, I am not satisfied that the orders reserved a right to the applicant to reinstate the proceedings, in the absence of sound reasons for exercising the discretion. Nor am I satisfied that the consent orders, as filed, precluded the exercise by the Court of the discretion as to whether the proceedings ought be reinstated.
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