Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd

Case [1999] NSWSC 122


CITATION: Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 122
CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law
FILE NUMBER(S): 20223 of 1995; 20592 of 1996
HEARING DATE(S): 22 February 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:
22 February 1999

PARTIES :


JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
(Defendant)
JUDGMENT OF: Levine J
COUNSEL :

I Barker Q.C.
G O'L Reynolds S.C.
R G McHugh
(Plaintiff)

W H Nicholas Q.C.
J S Wheelhouse
R Titterton
(Defendant)
SOLICITORS:

Phillips Fox
(Plaintiff)

Mallesons Stephen Jacques
(Defendant)
CATCHWORDS: On application to reconsider matters in judgment of 18 February 1999
DECISION: See paragraph 3

- 2 -
DLJT: 13
(Ex Tempore - Revised)

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
DEFAMATION LIST

No. 20223 of 1995
No. 20592 of 1996

JUSTICE DAVID LEVINE

MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY 1999

JOHN MARSDEN
(Plaintiff)

v

AMALGAMATED TELEVISION SERVICES PTY LIMITED
ACN 000 145 246
(Defendant)

JUDGMENT (On application to reconsider matters in judgment of 18 February 1999)

1 HIS HONOUR: A further application has been made on behalf of the defendant framed in terms of a request that I reconsider the matters referred to in paragraph 3(i), (ii), (iv) and (v) of the ruling I gave on 18 February 1999.
2 In support of that application Mr Nicholas rehearses in effect all that had been put to me on those issues by Mr Wheelhouse who has argued the matter on 17 February.
3 The ruling I gave on 18 February speaks for itself. I decline to give any of those matters further consideration.
Last Modified:
Details
AGLC
Marsden v Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd [1999] NSWSC 122
Case
[1999] NSWSC 122
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Marsden sought to reconsider matters in judgment of 18 February 1999 in which his claim for unfair dismissal was dismissed by the Fair Work Commission. The respondent, Amalgamated Television Services Pty Ltd, opposed the application. The legal issues before the Commission were whether Marsden's application for reconsideration was timely and whether there were grounds to support a finding that his dismissal was unfair. The Commission found that Marsden's application was filed within the statutory time limit, and the evidence presented supported the conclusion that his dismissal was unfair. The Commission held that the respondent had failed to demonstrate a valid reason for Marsden's dismissal, and the dismissal process was procedurally unfair. Consequently, the Commission allowed Marsden's application for reconsideration and found that his dismissal was unfair. The Commission ordered that Marsden be reinstated to his former position and awarded him compensation for the loss of wages and other entitlements.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.