Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Buckeridge v Littlepay Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1036 File number(s): VID 107 of 2022
Judgment of: O'CALLAGHAN J
Date of judgment: 30 August 2023
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – respondent terminated applicant's employment on ground of redundancy – where applicant alleged termination was adverse action within the meaning of s 342 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where applicant claimed adverse action was taken because she exercised workplace rights or took sick leave (Fair Work claims) – Fair Work claims dismissed – where applicant alleged that respondent was vicariously liable for an alleged tort of inducing breach of contract (tort claim) – tort claim not supported by evidence – tort claim dismissed – where applicant alleged respondent contravened s 1317AC of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) (whistleblower claim) –whistleblower claim dismissed – application dismissed
Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1317AC Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 341, 342, 352, 360, 361, 793
Cases cited: Alam v National Australia Bank Ltd (2021) 288 FCR 301 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500 Directed Electronics OE Pty Ltd v OE Solutions Pty Ltd (No 8) [2022] FCA 1404 Ermel v Duluxgroup (Australia) Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCA 17 General Motors–Holden's Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 51 ALJR 235 Khiani v Australian Bureau of Statistics [2011] FCAFC 109 Serpanos v Commonwealth [2022] FCA 1266
Division: Fair Work Division
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