his decision concerns an application for permission to appeal against a decision 1 of Senior Deputy President Richards handed down on 7 May 2015 (Decision). The Decision concerned an unfair dismissal application made by Ms Elizabeth Atkinson on 12 January 2015 under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the termination of her employment by L.R.G catering Pty. Ltd T/A Marine Provisioning Australia (Respondent). [2] At the hearing of the appeal matter on 14 July 2015 the Applicant represented herself and Mr Lorenzen appeared via telephone for the Respondent. Background [3] The Respondent provides catering services to day cruises in the Whitsundays and a bowls club. The Applicant began performing duties in the cleaning/kitchen duties role since approximately July or August 2013. [4] In the matter at first instance, there was a host of conflicting facts. The …show more content…
The Applicant submitted that the Respondent was “controlling and bulling and being very assertive with his nature” at the first instance hearing and that the Senior Deputy President should have taken this into account. 2 She also reemphasise that she did not resign from her employment and only left the workplace because she feared for her life and was told to get out. In short, the Applicant was challenging the factual findings made at first instance and in particular the finding that she was not dismissed at the employer’s initiative and abandoned her employment. In the Applicant’s view, this finding could not have been made on the facts, particularly given that it would have been difficult for her to find another job in the area of Airlie Beach and as a result of losing the job, she has lost her house and lives in a shed. Further, she submitted that the Senior Deputy President’s acknowledgement that she was called “an old cow” and told to “get out” was inconsistent with the ultimate finding that she was not
Analysis / Ruling of the Court. The district court granted the employer’s motion for summary judgement on the sexual harassment claim due to the fact that Sherry Lynch treated both men and women equally in this case; that is, she behaved in the same vulgar and inappropriate way towards both genders. For this reason, Smith’s gender was not a contributing factor to the harassment, which is one of the conditions that would have to be met for the sexual harassment claim. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the district court’s judgement. The district court ended up excluding evidence pertaining to the sexual harassment claim because the sexual harassment claim had been dismissed on summary judgement, and because the court decided that the details of the harassment bore little relevance to the retaliation case whereas this evidence would be unfairly prejudicial to Hy-Vee. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgement. Smith did not offer any specifics on what evidence she would have wanted to present, which made it hard for the court to determine whether this evidence was material to the retaliation case or not. In her opposition to the motion in limine, she said she only wanted to discuss the harassment case in general, including mentioning that Lynch had harassed/touched her inappropriately. Hy-Vee had no objection to this, and Smith got to present this much evidence in the trial. Therefore, the appellate court found that she waived any objection to the
Wolford General Partnership (WGP) operates plumbing supply business which is also an exclusive supplier for certain stable construction firms. Because of its excellent reputations and services, WGP is able to an extremely profitable entity for the business. WGP uses an accrual method of accounting and has been using June 30 fiscal year for the tax report purpose after its election of §444 since its formation.
In R v Sheu, the leave to appeal made by applicant, Simon Sheu for the sentence imposed upon him in the District Court on 16th of September 2016 was refused at the 2nd of May 2018 hearing. The applicant was previously sentenced by Williams in the District Court for two counts of break, enter and steal (s 112(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)), three counts of aggravated break, enter and steal (s 112(2)) and once for taking part in a criminal group (s 93T(1)). The sole ground of the proposed appeal made to the Court of Criminal Appeal was that the applicant seeks leave because he has
They reasoned that since Barnett didn’t either argue against the dismissal of negligence claim at the time of its dismissal or include the claim in subsequent revisions, she had no support for her claim that the court had erred in dismissing her claim of negligence. The court also ruled that the language of section 3-108(b) of the Tort Immunity Act meant that complete, unconditional immunity was to be offered if supervision was present. As a result of this interpretation, the issue of if the lifeguards had committed willful and wanton misconduct was rendered irrelevant. Since the issues of material fact raised by the appellant weren’t actually issues of material fact, the Supreme Court affirmed the District and Appellate Court’s motion and subsequent affirmation of summary
Regardless, it is still disturbing to see ninety-four years of precedented law so easily dismissed in the Supreme Court’s ruling in O'Callahan v. Parker; however, luckily, eighteen years later, the error was corrected in their decision of Solorio v. United States.
The announcement in the High Court order is based upon the conclusion of the learned High Court judge that the respondent acted unlawfully in the exercise of its statutory powers by refusing to deal with the applicant's duly appointed solicitor in connection with his claim for damages for personal injuries.The high court also ordered that the applicant must recover costs from the respondent in respect for the application for leave to bring judicial review, the costs of substantive hearing of three days and the cost of taking judgement must be
At the behest of Solicitor General John Les, an inquiry was launched in February o...
Facts: Alton Lemon took David Kurtzman to court with the support of a number of interest groups including the Pennsylvania Civil liberties union and the NAACP in hopes the court would find a law in Pennsylvania unconstitutional. This said law, the Nonpublic Elementary and secondary education act, had allowed Kurtzman to “purchase” educational services for private schools, and could use tax money to reimburse private school for the cost of salaries as well as books and supplies. The state agreed to provide funding as long as the money went towards secular expenses, meaning the books and supplies that were meant for teaching the same courses that were taught in public schools. In order to receive money, there had to be records of secular expenses and non secular expenses. This act began to be able to be put to use in July of 1968. Ultimately, “96% of the nonpublic school students attended religious schools, primarily roman catholic”(Epstein. Walker 147). In Rhode Island, there was a similar law, the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act, where 15% of the teachers salaries were funded to contribute to private schools, as long as no religious classes were taught. It turned out though that 95% of the
R v Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte Factortame Ltd and others [1999] All ER (D) 1173.
Mr Justice Wilson, ‘Lectures on Advocacy and Ethics in the Supreme Court’ (1979) 15 Legal Research Foundation Inc.
The name of the parties are (appellant) commissioner of the police of the metropolis,(respondent) Mr. Michael Rottman . The judgment has been held in the house of lords. The judges on this were- Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton and Lord Roger of Earlsferry. The barristers and solicitors in this case were, Mr. Perry, on behalf of the appellant and Miss Montgomery, for the respondent. The date of the judgment was 16th may 2002.
This essay will examine the main cause of the demise of the derivative claim which is the possibility of pursuing a corporate relief and even costs via an unfair prejudice petition, a relief and order that was initially only available via derivative action. Further this essay will discuss as to how the boundaries between the statutory derivative action and the unfair prejudice should be drawn and what restrictions should be added to the unfair prejudice remedy under section 994 of the Companies Act 2006 so that the significance of the statutory derivative action can be reinstated.
This legislation does not prevent dismissals from occurring but only allows the employee to challenge their dismissal. The Unfair Dismissals Act 1977-2007 is the legislation that covers the basis for Alfie’s case. In his case, he seeks to prove that his dismissal was unfair and unwarranted. Thereby seeking redress from his employee. Many aspects of his case are pertinent to the Acts as the facts indicate.
Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) v. K (FC) (Appellant) Fornah (FC) (Appellant) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Respondent) [2006] UKHL 46
GWEBU v Minister of Correctional Services and Others , (1) SACR 191 (GNP 2014 ).