NSW Caselaw
Industrial Relations Commission New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Bossak v Health Secretary in respect of Murrumbidgee Local Health District [2020] NSWIRComm 1009 Hearing dates: 14 November 2019 Date of orders: 14 November 2019 Decision date: 18 February 2020 Jurisdiction: Industrial Relations Commission Before: Chief Commissioner Kite SC, Commissioner Sloan and Commissioner Webster Decision: Leave to appeal is refused Catchwords: EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – Industrial Relations Commission – Appeals – victimisation application – obligation on applicant to adduce evidence of both detriment and proscribed reason – mere conjecture as to reasons for unfavourable treatment insufficient to enliven presumption of proscribed reason – whether Commission obliged to raise with parties any authorities on which the Commission may rely
EVIDENCE – Discretions – whether Commissioner obliged to draw Jones v Dunkel inferences – whether Commissioner erred by preferring hearsay evidence over direct evidence – s 163 Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) – s 69 Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) Legislation Cited: Evidence Act 1995 (NSW) s 69 Health Services Act 1997 (NSW) s 116H Industrial Relations Act 1996 (NSW) ss 130, 163, 188, Ch 5 Pt 1, ss 210(1)(e) and (j), 210(2), 213 Cases Cited: Bossak v Murrumbidgee Local Health District [2019] NSWIRComm 1054 Caleta Trpimir v Northern Sydney Area Health Service [1995] NSWIRComm 38 Davis v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Limited [1998] 81 IR 364 Health Services Union o/b Bruce v Government of New South Wales in respect of NSW Ambulance [2017] NSWIRComm 1036 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Industrial Relations Secretary v Wattie [2017] NSWIRComm 1007 Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 Lee v Ausgrid (No 6) (2013) 237 IR 63; [2013] NSWIRComm 62 Manly Council v Byrne and Anor [2004] NSWCA 123 Public Service Association and Professional Officers' Association Amalgamated Union of New South Wales v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWIRComm 16 Refugee Review Tribunal, Re; Ex parte Aala (2000) 204 CLR 82 Twentieth Superpace Nominees v TWU [2006] NSWIRComm 218 Barclay v Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education (2010) 193 IR 251; [2010] FCA 284 Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; [2012] HCA 32 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Dr Peter Bossak (Appellant)
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