NSW Caselaw
Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales
CITATION: Sanders v Beresford Blake Thomas [2006] NSWIRComm 1123
PARTIES: APPLICANT: Mr. Jason Sanders RESPONDENT: Beresford Blake Thomas Ltd
FILE NUMBER(S): 6448 of 2005
CORAM: Ritchie C
Application for costs by respondent Company in unfair dismissal case. Original Decision jurisdictional argument as to whether applicant under a probationary period.-found applicant was covered by probationary period. Company argued that s181(2)(a) to (c) must be considered. CATCHWORDS: Applicant's representative submitted that only s 181(2) (c) relevant. Commission found only s.181(2) (c) relevant in such a case. Found that the application at first instant was neither frivolous or vexatious nor did the applicant unreasonably fail to agree to a settlement. Disagreement on facts existed. Application for costs dismissed.
LEGISLATION CITED: Industrial Relations Act,1996 Legal Professional Act 1987
Orange Community Accommodation Service Incorporated and Carolyn Vivienne Roddenby [2004] NSWIRCComm333. Bankstown City Council v Paris (1999) 93IR 209 CASES CITED: Lewis v Kunama Securities Pty Limited 6035 of 1996. Talbot v Rostcom Pty Ltd 99IR 131. Buston v Shire of Bairnsdale(1908) CLR 76. General Steel Industries v Commissioner of Railways(1964) 112 CLR
HEARING DATES: 13/07/06
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/31/2006
Mr. R Hassell-Solicitor LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES: Ms. L. Tucker-Solicitor
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