Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Toppo v P & J Harris & Sons (A Partnership) [2024] FCA 257 File number: NSD 219 of 2024
Judgment of: PERRAM J
Date of judgment: 19 March 2024
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – where Applicant alleges that termination by Respondent was adverse action taken for prohibited reasons – interlocutory application for interim reinstatement – where Applicant's visa requires ongoing employment by sponsoring employer – whether serious question to be tried – whether balance of convenience favours making of interim order
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) s 545(1) Federal Court Act 1976 (Cth) s 23 Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
Cases cited: Australian Broadcasting Corporation v O'Neill [2006] HCA 46; 227 CLR 57 Automatic Fire Sprinklers Pty Ltd v Watson (1946) 72 CLR 435 Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia v Blue Star Pacific Pty Limited [2009] FCA 726; 184 IR 333 Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41; 253 CLR 243 Khan v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FCAFC 21; 192 FCR 173 Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Le [2007] FCA 1318; 164 FCR 151 Yusuf v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 737
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 16
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