Gooley v Westpac Banking Corporation [1996] IRCA 673

678/96,

TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT - Claim covered by decision in Byrne

v Australia Airlines - Claim dismissed - Costs.

Industrial Relations Act 1988, s 347

WAYNE GOOLEY v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

No. NI.102 of 1994

CORAM: PLACE: DATE:

WILCOX CJ SYDNEY 10 OCTOBER 1996

a

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT) OF AUSTRALIA ) No. NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)

CORAM: PLACE: DATE:

THE COURT

Note:

NI.102 of 1994

BETWEEN: WAYNE GOOLEY

Applicant

AND: WESTPAC

CORPORATION

Respondent

WILCOX CJ SYDNEY 10 OCTOBER 1996

MINUTES OF ORDER

ORDERS THAT:

The application be dismissed.

Settlement and entry of orders

is dealt with

Order 36 of the Industrial Relations Court Rules.

BANKING

in

IN THE INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COURT)

OF AUSTRALIA ) No. NI.102 of 1994 NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY)

BETWEEN: WAYNE GOOLEY

Applicant

AND: WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION

Respondent

CORAM: WILCOX CJ PLACE: SYDNEY DATE: 10 OCTOBER 1996

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WILCOX CJ: On 3 April 1995 I delivered reasons for judgment in this matter. At that time there was a pending appeal to the High Court of Australia against the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court in Byrne v Australian Airlines Limited (1994) 47 FCR 300. It was obvious that the outcome of that appeal would be critical to the applicant's prospect of obtaining damages for the respondent's breach of the award under which he was employed, the Bank Officials (Federal) (1963) Award. Accordingly, I refrained from making any final orders on 3 April. I stood the matter over for

mention on 1 December.

The High Court delivered judgment on 11 October 1995. The case is reported at 131 ALR 422. The High Court

upheld the Full Court's majority decision that an employee is

- 2- not entitled to recover damages from an employer in respect of the employer's breach of an award. As I had indicated on 3 April 1995 that the applicant's defamation claim must fail, I assumed that the applicant would accept that I had no alternative other than to dismiss his application. However, on 1 December the applicant's solicitor sought the opportunity to put a submission in favour of a different order. I agreed to this and directed that written submissions be lodged.