Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales CITATION : Box Valley Pty Ltd v Price [2000] NSWIRComm 117 APPELLANT: Box Valley Pty Ltd PARTIES : RESPONDENT: Richard Esmond Price FILE NUMBER: IRC 260 of 2000 CORAM: Walton J Vice-President; Hungerford J; Cambridge C CATCHWORDS : Appeal - unfair dismissal - appellate review under Industrial Relations Act 1996 not as of right but by leave only - proper basis for appellate review - decision needs to be considered as a whole - mere contest as to findings of fact which were open on the evidence generally in the absence of more not enough to attract leave - leave to appeal refused HEARING DATES: 06/23/2000 EXTEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE : 06/23/2000 APPELLANT: Mr Magee of Counsel SOLICITOR: Mr Fitzgerald Alto Group LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: RESPONDENT: Mr Fisher Fisher Cartwright Berriman SOLICITOR: Mr Stevens Fisher Cartwright Berriman JUDGMENT: - 1 - INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES FULL BENCH CORAM: WALTON J, Vice-President HUNGERFORD J CAMBRIDGE C FRIDAY 23 JUNE 2000 MATTER NO. IRC 260 OF 2000 BOX VALLEY PTY LTD & RICHARD ESMOND PRICE Application by Box Valley Pty Ltd for leave to appear and appeal against a decision of Commissioner McLeay given on 24.12.99 in Matter No. IRC98/4451 DECISION OF THE COMMISSION (Extempore) 1 This is an application for leave to appeal, and, if granted, to appeal the decision of Commissioner McLeay dated 24 December 1999 ordering the appellant to pay an amount of six weeks wages to the respondent. The Commissioner found the dismissal of the respondent to be harsh, unreasonable or unjust. 2 We have determined that leave to appeal should not be granted in this matter. In accordance with the convention adopted by appeal benches of this Commission and its predecessors we do not give reasons for our decision. 3 Nonetheless we felt it incumbent upon us to make a number of observations regarding this appeal which may be of some relevance generally in the appellate review of decisions made in relation to unfair dismissal matters. It is necessary for an appellant to establish a proper basis for appellate review. This will rarely be obtained by reference to the particular language used in the concluding remarks of the decision maker, absent from the reasoning process itself. In other words, a decision needs to be considered as a whole and not subject to unwarranted selected reference in order to establish error. 4 In any event, we think it should be emphasised, as clearly as we may, that appellate review is not available under this statute as of right, but requires the requisite degree of importance to attract leave to appeal. Mere contest as to findings of fact which might otherwise remain open on the evidence will generally, in the absence of other considerations, not attract leave. 5 We order: (1) leave to appeal is refused; (2) the appeal is dismissed. DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.