Fox v Wilderness Escape Outdoor Adventures Pty Ltd [2011] FWA 7476

(#P73_8066) Nielsen - exhibit R4

(#P86_9902) There is no suggestion that Ms Fox sought payment for any work undertaken when attending of her own volition.

(#P127_19307) The email recalled was that provided earlier in the day not an email sent some time earlier involving work in terms 3 and 4 more generally as suggested on behalf of the applicant in these proceedings.

(#P130_20123) Transcript - PN1801.

(#P133_20791) Attachment FF4 to Exhibit A1.

(#P136_21037) Attachment FF5 to Exhibit A1.

(#P227_27991) [2010] FWAFB 5709, 16 September 2010, per Lawler VP, Drake SDP and Lewin C.

(#P272_35029) PR973462, 11 August 2006 per Giudice J, Watson VP and Cribb C. This appeal was determined under the provisions of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 pursuant to the provisions of the Act as in force prior to the coming into operation of the Workplace Relations Amendment (Work Choices) Act 2005. As a result, the primary jurisdictional question was whether the applicant had been dismissed by the employer which was considered having regard to the formulation in the Termination of Employment Convention which in turn referred to termination at the initiative of the employer.

(#P303_46724) PR973462 (footnotes omitted).

(#P308_47286) See the discussion of related concepts in Dover-Ray v Real Insurance Pty Ltd [2010] FWAFB 2670, 9 April 2010 per Lawler VP, Richards SDP and Larkin C.

(#P350_51683) Section 381(2) of the Act.

(#P355_52433) Selvachandran v Peterson Plastics Pty Ltd (1995) 62 IR 371 as cited in Potter v WorkCover Corporation, per Ross VP, Williams SDP, Foggo C PR948009, 15 June 2004 and endorsed by the Full Bench in Industrial Automation Group Pty Ltd T/A Industrial Automation [2010] FWAFB 8868, 2 December 2010 per Kaufman SDP, Richards SDP and Hampton C at par [36].

(#P541_64856) There is conflict in the evidence as to the correct payments including an indication that the applicant's normal camping day payment was $220 per day plus an additional payment for TOlL if there was an overnight stay. There is also an indication in the evidence of Mr Govan that different daily payments apply to various activities. I also note that some further material going to these matters was provided by the respondent however that latter material could not be tested due to the circumstances of its supply to FWA (after the hearing had concluded and in response to some supplementray material supplied by the applicant with leave of the Tribunal). I also note that some of the material supplied by the applicant in that context went beyond the extent of leave given. Accordingly, I have not relied on any of the post-hearing material other than that supplied by the applicant dealing directly with exhibit MFIR7 and confirmation of the applicant's post dismissal income.

(#P544_66529) The 2010 figures are drawn predominately from the evidence of Ms Nielsen - including exhibit R4.

(#P577_70787) See the discussion of contingencies in Ellawala v Australian Postal Corporation AIRC Print S5109, 17 April 2000 per Ross VP, Williams SDP and Gay C and in Enhance Systems Pty Ltd v James Cox AIRC PR910779, 31 October 2001 per Williams SDP, Acton SDP and Gay C.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer