NSW Caselaw
Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales
CITATION : Stephan and RL Whyburn and Associates [2000] NSWIRComm 154 APPLICANT: PARTIES : Tati Stephan RESPONDENT: RL Whyburn and Associates FILE NUMBER: 3856 of 1999 CORAM: Sams DP Termination of employment - unfair dismissal - reasons for dismissal - unrepresented litigant - whether jurisdiction exists when applicant does not seek reinstatement, re-employment or compensation pursuant to s89 of the Act - conduct of proceedings - whether application vexatious - Principles considered. CATCHWORDS : Held, jurisdictional issue not determined - vexatious application - application dismissed pursuant to s162(2)(h) of the Act - Recommendation made. LEGISLATION CITED : Industrial Relations Act 1996 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) General Steel Inc v Commissioner for Railways (NSW) and Ors (1964) 112 CLR 125 Heidt v Chrysler Australia (1976) 26 FLR 257 Burton v Shire of Bairnsdale (1909) 7 CLR 76 CASES CITED : Sparks and Fred Hoskings (unreported) Sams DP, Matter IRC3939 of 1998, 5 March 1999 Wahba and Brighton Fruit Barn (unreported) Sams DP, Matter IRC4413 of 1998, 29 March 1999 Nilsen v Loyal Orange Trust (1997), 76 IR 180 Attorney General v Wentworth (1988) 14 NSW LR 491 HEARING DATES: 07/24/2000 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 08/17/2000
APPLICANT: Ms T Stephan, unrepresented accompanied by Mr E Stephan (her father) LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr N Dawson, of Counsel SOLICITOR Mr R Whyburn, RL Whyburn & Associates
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