Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24

High Court of Australia Brennan CJ Dawson, Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd [1995] HCA 24

ORDER

1. Appeal dismissed.

2.

(a) Respondent's application for special leave to cross-appeal granted. Cross-appeal allowed.

(b) Paragraphs one, two, three and four of the order of the Full Court of the Federal Court set aside.

(c) Remit the matter to the Full Court of the Federal Court for reconsideration in the light of this Court's reasons for judgment.

3. No order as to costs.

Cur adv vult

The following written judgments were delivered:—

11 October 1995 Brennan CJ, Dawson and Toohey JJ.

The appellants were employed by the respondent as baggage handlers at Sydney airport. On 28 March 1989, they were dismissed from their employment for pilfering. They sought relief in the Federal Court, claiming that their dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable and, for that reason, in breach of cl 11(a) of the Transport Workers (Airlines) Award 1988. That clause provided: "Termination of employment by an employer shall not be harsh, unjust or unreasonable. For the purposes of this clause, termination of employment shall include terminations with or without notice." Each appellant sought an order under s 178 of the Industrial Relations Act 1988 Cth (the Act) for the imposition of a penalty and an order under s 356 for the payment of the penalty to him. The maximum penalty available in each case was $1,000. Invoking the accrued jurisdiction of the Federal Court, the appellants also sought damages for breach of contract and for breach of statutory duty.

The trial judge found that the respondent's conduct in terminating the appellants' employment was not harsh, unjust or unreasonable and dismissed the claims. On appeal, the Full Court found to the contrary, but held that the appellants were not entitled to damages for breach of contract or breach of statutory duty [1] . The matters were remitted to the trial judge to deal with the claims in relation to penalty. The appellants now appeal to this Court against the rejection by the Full Court of their claims for damages.