Barnett v David Craig and Company [1995] QIRC 219 (1995) 149 QGIG 784

784 QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL GAZETTE (7 July , 1995 #1/##ll#l!#ll##lli!##ll##########ll###li#ii#######!I/Jii/i#lillli##li#### fod11,1riu l l/eiw io11s /cl /9!i0 ~ ?.95 •• applk ati,m for n.:in ,!:llcni.:nt f.\o . 1!6SJ n{i 995; c11 1u · l;':D USTR! ,\ I, ( 0:- i:v!ISSIO'.'!l;R 11;,u . ,\ pplic,l!iun !or Rc i n$t .u cmcm •· /\pp hcatiim rnr Extrn,ion o! I i mt.: •- "[ i:n,: hi.ended . HI YO RT 0:\ DECIS!OS.: (t\S l:THI l: D} in ginng ,, d c1:1,1or 1 !mm t h,· lknch on 25 ,\l :1 , 19 95 1!tc Chicf Conm1i-;s ,oner sa1<1 : • ··T he 1ennin~t io 11 or the Appl i ca nt's employme nt foilo" ·cd fr(1111 a notiu .: given lO him on 9 Fchrua r~. 1995. If t he corrcc1 analy~is be tliul til e cmployrncnt came lo an end on the c.~piry o r the period ol notice which wa~ then given. the L0 1Hplo)·111 en 1 cairn; t 1> an end o n 2'.\ :V1a rch ! 995. On the an:ll) sis which l consider t,1 he ti, vourcd hy the aulhori ll c,. lh,1! tor t he purposes of the lnJu.wriai RC'lm ,on, Au ! 99/i dismi,sal occur:; when t he noticc is g iven. the cmplo} mcnt came ii.> .in cn <l on 9 Fcbniary. 1995. On tk,t wors t ca,c ,u1a iysis. ihal thc, c111ploy mc1ll c;ime lo an encl nn () Feh rn ri r: 199 5. th1, r\ pplicatio 11 wa~ li k d 51 da) s nut of ti m\? . On the a!t,:rna1 i,·..: anal ys; 1s. the /\ pplic,1tion was filetl eiglll tla: , ou t of tune. ·i li e /\pp l i ra111 mm seeks rel ief pursuant to-'· 2Ci 5(2)(h). :--: o" hcrc in the , \cl arc the rri llci pk; upon "h ich the Commissi ,)n is tn acl in determin ing w he ther or n1>t l<• c;,:lcnd tim<.: . specdicd or in any way indicated. I consi ,kr i t unli ke ly that general princirks or s. 92 ap ply 10 an ,1ppliw t ion l1n da , . 295(2J(b). I f they do !hey must apply tl> the ap pl ica li(111 under s. 295 i t;.d L The scheme of Division 5. Part 12 is clabora1c. I think it unlil,;d> to ha1 ·c been the intc ntion of the Jcgislatur<.: that relief might he ,., ith hdd (11 1 di,crc ti on.iry grn u11 Js from an ,\ ppl icanl w ho is o th erwise succc~sfui. In th ose circumstances it s<:..:ms to 111 c that th l' d iscrcti,in at ,. 295(sl(hJ. mu st b, approached oil the ha, is th,n it is to ht: c,,· rci sed on a ca~c by ca;;c basis. guidctl by 1l1c gcn<.:ral purposes of 1.h c /\ cl. ·1he rckvant g ,.;ncral purpose· here is . 01· coursc. to give cffoc1 to the llJt io n 's oblig,.ition, u 1H.kr th~ ' knni nathm u f l·mpl ,i y111 <.:n! C, ,11,·c ntion. ·1he argwm:nt mo, t fa vourable to ti le Rc ,ron<k111 hero.: . ~nd it arises on the 111<.:;;i, th ;,t time runs fi-0111 23 Vl, 1rc h I' )')5. is th,tl in fac1 th<.: Applican t 11as " ilhin lhc 2 1 d,1y pcriod a\\·are of his opponu11 i1.y to t ake proccc,lings in the Commissi\,n and. imketl . in receipt or prok~ sional .id1·i cc advi si ng hi m to do so. It is I think. a forcd"u l argument. h is not th e purpose 11f the dis,n:t ion ,ll ,-: , 2 951 2)(b ). to prmc c1 p<.:11 pk 1Yho. bei ng properly ad1 isd . sub,cqucnlly <:lta11;.: c thcir 111i11d . It is oi"cnur,c n<.:ccssar; to s1.rc,s th , tt Oil !hc: ,rn .ily si, t lta l the cmplo> mcnt can,c to a n end OH 9 Feb ru ary I'J95 t ha t ar;;umcnt "not a1aila!>lc: to the Respo n de n t. t\11 argu 111e11t :hat 1hc c,tc:11; in 11 ,, 1· 1i 1nc App l i ,, ,t ion 11 ·as irn:~pon, ibly dcl,1; ed. \\ ould be a-. ai l;ibk. :\,: .i i-:,111 1, t th: 11.. I shou ld h,1,-c r,.;h'ani tn the ci rcum~ t:11Kc th:ii t he ,\ pplic:lill st.:n<.:tl th e Rc.spo ndclll for a rc r ind of 18 }Cars. It 11ou ld no! I U1in h. he co11s istcn! " ill! th e gene ral pm posc ()I° th e Tc rmi11 :11io 11 of Lmp lo:1mcnt Co n1cnti1>n or (,f t he J\<:t ligh tly to " ·it it hnld the upponu11it~ 10 l iti ga t..: 111 1l1c c~sc of !.he c•mpl o :;c;.,; "i 11t , uch a l eng.t h oC scn irc . / \dJit ionall y the pcr io tl of d.: la\· "°'" on ,my mwI , ·si~. ,hnri. I ,1 111 to ld t>~ the Respon dcn! th at t l;c, r c; is 1w 1\ ·it nc',s ·,din \\(H;l<l ha•;,• ht.:o.:n :.1, ·,1ilahk t<, t he: R-.:,p,111,li.:rll if 1it -: t1p pii ca1 i,m h:td be en iiktl -: ,,rlia 11ho is nul 11011 a\ aii,1!:le. !"hen: is no niat.:rial bef,1 rc· 11w on the hasis of " hi ch I (;ould conc l ud.,; th,u th e Re~poPtkllt l ms hccn prejudiccd if the .1\pp lication is g, r ar !l c" d h-:cau,..: tit <.: R..:,pnndcnt wiil be c.,po,cd t11 Ii! ig.at ion "hi ch it woul d 01h~n,i ;-;1.! 11<H ban:· lo !~H.:~. ' lh~ 1l pr\..'jutl it:t.· \\j!I t: ri ~c Dol fr ~,m lht.: dcl a: hut frn111 th <.: tkc1,in11 or t h,; (. cunmissi1111 011 ha i:11 1ce . ll: ,1 ·ing rq!.ird to ,iii thc li1 ctors it scetn~ !O Ill~ that I should c:, t,·1 1t! 1i 111e . ! ,?r:111t lhi: !\ ppiii:ation.••. B: tlt<.: C,ttnmi~sion. {L .S.! K.B, l' lil srnrrn. ·\ c1i ,1J l 11d u,1ri al Rc"g 1, t r:1r I' J. ( j~1il aght:r of i\1cCu il nugh R1 thl.'n~nn. Soli..:ifnrs j~w 1h~ \ ppii~i:iH. 7 Jul y, I 99 5 J QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT IND US TRIAL GAZETTE 785 D.W.S. Craig for the R<! spnndent. Operati ve Date: NIA Rc pon on Decisi on -- b acnsion ol°Timc Relc a,c<l: 28 June 1995 #################ll###################### ##########/1##/1# -- 1 of 1 --