s.394 - Unfair dismissal

Application for relief from unfair dismissal - valid reason related to conduct - no lack of procedural fairness - other matters suggest harshness - dismissal not unfair - application dismissed.

[1] Michael Tapp was involved in a serious accident while performing overtime work for Ausgrid Management Pty Ltd (Ausgrid) in his role of Operating Depot Supervisor at around 6:46pm on 10 July 2025. Ausgrid is a Distributed Network Service Provider for electricity in New South Wales. Mr Tapp was working on a fault on a substation kiosk in Hurstville when an arc flash occurred. An arc flash is a phase-to-phase or phase-to-neutral/earth short circuit where the electric current passes through air creating an arc. The arc produces light, noise, and a cloud of plasma commonly referred to as a "fireball." The force of the explosion caused Mr Tapp to fall backwards. Mr Tapp suffered serious burns to his right knee from the explosion and burns to his face, right arm, and left thigh. Mr Tapp was wearing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) when the explosion occurred but was not wearing a face shield. It had been a requirement for operators like Mr Tapp to wear a face shield when performing live low voltage testing work since at least February 2025. There is no dispute that Mr Tapp was performing live low voltage testing work when the accident occurred. The accident led to Mr Tapp being summarily dismissed by Ausgrid on 28 July 2025 for alleged serious misconduct. Ausgrid dismissed Mr Tapp for failing to comply with its safety procedures, attempting to disguise the non-compliance, and for dishonesty during the investigation process. Mr Tapp filed an unfair dismissal application on 30 July 2025. This decision concerns whether Mr Tapp was unfairly dismissed within the meaning of s.385 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[2] The evidence filed by Mr Tapp and Ausgrid is identified in a schedule at the end of this decision. Hearings were held in Sydney on 15 and 16 December 2025. I granted permission for Ausgrid to be represented at the hearing. This was not opposed by Mr Tapp. Mr Tapp was represented by the Electrical Trades Union of Australia (ETU).[1]

[3] There is no dispute, and I find for the purposes of s.396 of the FW Act, that:

• Mr Tapp's application was filed within 21 days of his dismissal taking effect.
• Mr Tapp was a person protected from unfair dismissal.
• The Small Business Fair Dismissal Code is not relevant because Ausgrid is not a small business employer.
• Mr Tapp's dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

[4] Section 387 of the FW Act provides that, in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person - whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

• [5] I am required to consider each of these factors, to the extent they are relevant to the factual circumstances before me.[2]

Was there a valid reason for dismissal related to Mr Tapp**'**s capacity or conduct?

• [6] In order to be a valid reason, the reason for the dismissal should be "sound, defensible or well founded"[3] and should not be "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced."[4] However, the Commission will not stand in the shoes of the employer and determine what the Commission would do if it was in the position of the employer.[5]

• [7] Where a dismissal relates to an employee's conduct, the Commission must be satisfied that the conduct occurred and justified termination.[6] The question of whether the alleged conduct took place and what it involved is to be determined by the Commission on the basis of the evidence in the proceedings before it. The test is not whether the employer believed, on reasonable grounds after sufficient enquiry, that the employee was guilty of the conduct which resulted in termination.[7]

• [8] There is no dispute that Mr Tapp committed misconduct when he breached Ausgrid's safety procedures at around 6:46pm on 10 July 2025 by failing to wear a face shield when he performed live low voltage testing work. Mr Tapp accepted in cross-examination that he understood the requirement to wear a face shield when performing this type of work[8] and Mr Tapp accepted in cross-examination that he was not wearing the face shield when the incident occurred.[9] Ausgrid employees generally have a hard hat helmet with a face shield attached and a different hard hat with no face shield.[10] The video footage provided by Ausgrid confirms Mr Tapp was wearing a hard hat helmet without the face shield attached when the explosion occurred. Mr O'Keefe and Ms Strong provided uncontested evidence that failing to wear the required PPE constitutes a breach of lawful and reasonable directions issued by Ausgrid through the following policies and procedures:

• Electrical Safety Rules.
• Critical Controls and Performance Requirements Framework Fatal Risk 1 for Operating Network Mains and Apparatus.
• SWMS A-OP001 Operating Mains & Apparatus.

[9] There was a degree of dispute between Mr Tapp and Ausgrid regarding when it became a requirement to wear a face shield when performing live low voltage testing work. Ausgrid provided a copy of a Health & Safety Alert issued to employees on 19 October 2022. The Safety Alert states:

"Effective immediately, when performing fault finding tasks, an arc rated face-shield with chin cup must be worn when opening access doors/covers/hatches/lids to access equipment where live exposed low voltage (LV) mains and apparatus may be within minimum safe work distances (MSWD) of the worker."[12]

However, the document goes on to state: "Safety Alert is valid for 12 months from issue date." That statement creates uncertainty regarding whether the requirement remained in place after the expiry date of 19 October 2023. Ausgrid did not produce any documentation to confirm that further formal steps were taken when the Safety Alert expired.

[10] In any event, there is no dispute that the requirement to wear a face shield applied from 3 February 2025, which is when the requirement was included in Ausgrid's Electrical Safety Rules.

[11] Although it is somewhat surprising that Ausgrid was unable to produce documentation to confirm what happened when the Safety Alert expired on 19 October 2023, I do not consider the resolution of this issue to be overly significant for the purposes of this case. Even if the requirement only commenced operating on 3 February 2025, Mr Tapp was clearly required to comply with the requirement when he performed work on 10 July 2025. Mr Tapp did not comply with the requirement.

• [12] Mr Tapp provided email evidence which demonstrates that several employees had raised concerns with Ausgrid in February, March, and July 2025 about visibility issues from wearing the face shields, particularly during inclement weather.[13] The evidence also establishes Ausgrid is currently trialling a different type of face shield that may improve visibility.[14] I do not consider the concerns raised by employees about the use of face shields are overly significant for the purposes of this case. The concerns raised by employees do not explain why Mr Tapp failed to wear the face shield on 10 July 2025. The concerns raised by employees would have been quite relevant if, for example, Mr Tapp took the helmet with a face shield off due to visibility issues on 10 July 2025 before the arc flash occurred. But that is not the case here. Mr Tapp has indicated the reason that he did not wear the face shield was "human error."[15] Mr Tapp did not fail to wear the face shield because of any of the concerns that had been raised by other employees. Mr Tapp and Mr Howard also accepted in cross-examination that the raising of these issues did not negate the need to wear a face shield.[16]

• [13] In addition to wearing the required PPE, Ausgrid operators are required to complete a Hazard Assessment Conversation (HAC) at the start of every job or every workday.[17] The HAC is normally done through an electronic online application, but it can be completed via a hard copy form if the application is not working.[18] Mr Tapp accepted in cross-examination that completing HACs is important and helpful for identifying the correct PPE for each job.[19] Mr Howard also confirmed the importance of completing HACs in cross-examination.[20] There is no dispute that the completion of HACs constitutes a lawful and reasonable direction from Ausgrid.

• [14] I consider it is clear on the evidence that Mr Tapp did not complete a HAC at any time prior to the electric arc flash occurring at around 6:46pm on 10 July 2025. Mr Tapp's evidence is that he does not recall if he completed a HAC on 10 July 2025.[21] Mr Tapp provided evidence that he was unable to complete a HAC using the online application earlier in the day on 10 July 2025.[22] Mr Tapp indicated he would normally complete a hard copy HAC form when he had problems with the online application, but there is no evidence that he had done this prior to the arc flash explosion on 10 July 2025. Mr Howard confirmed during cross-examination that when he attended the site in Hurstville, Mr Tapp confirmed that he had not completed a HAC.[23] The failure to complete a HAC was a further breach of safety procedures and a further instance of misconduct by Mr Tapp on 10 July 2025.

• [15] I also consider it is clear on the evidence that Mr Tapp included false information on a hardcopy HAC form before leaving for hospital with Mr Howard on 10 July 2025. Mr Howard confirmed in cross-examination that it was Mr Tapp who decided to record a completion time of 6:15am on the HAC form that he signed and left in his work vehicle on 10 July 2025.[24] That was the time that Mr Tapp's shift commenced on 10 July 2025, it was not the time that the assessment was completed by Mr Tapp. Further, Mr Tapp did not complete a hazard assessment at all, he signed and dated an old HAC form completed by Mr Howard years earlier for a different job.[25] Mr Howard also confirmed in cross-examination that the completion of the old HAC form was in part to indicate to Ausgrid that Mr Tapp had completed a HAC in circumstances where he had not.[26]

• [16] I do not accept Mr Tapp's conduct in recording false information on the HAC form can be excused because of the effects of the electric arc flash explosion. The HAC form was completed after 7:20pm on 10 July 2025 because Mr Howard was still travelling to assist Mr Tapp at that time based on call log transcripts provided by Ausgrid.[27] Given the vehicle log evidence demonstrates Mr Tapp moved his vehicle at 7:27pm on 10 July 2025, which was before Mr Howard arrived at the site,[28] it is likely it was at 7:45pm or later when the HAC form was completed. That is because Mr Howard gave evidence the HAC form was completed after Mr Tapp had got changed and Mr Howard had applied gel to his burns.[29] That means the HAC form was completed around one hour after the explosion had occurred. Mr Tapp was being assisted by Mr Howard at this time, he had changed out of his burnt clothes, and gel had been applied to his burns.[30] Mr Tapp had been able to tell Mr Howard that he had not completed a HAC and had identified that he had an old version of a HAC form in a folder in his work vehicle.[31] Mr Tapp was able to recall that his shift had commenced at 6:15am and wrote this time on the form. Mr Howard could not have assisted with this because he did not know what time Mr Tapp's shift commenced.[32] The evidence confirms Mr Tapp had been able to make a degree of sense on several phone calls after the explosion[33] and that Mr Tapp had been able to move his work vehicle to the other side of the road.[34] The medical evidence relied on by Mr Tapp is not sufficient to establish he was suffering from delirium after the explosion given the uncontested evidence from Dr Jewell, who viewed footage of Mr Tapp after the explosion and viewed transcripts of what Mr Tapp stated in phone calls. For all these reasons, I consider Mr Tapp committed a further act of misconduct when he recorded false information on a HAC form.

• [17] I find that Mr Tapp's conduct on 10 July 2025 in failing to wear a face shield as PPE, failing to complete a HAC prior to performing the relevant work, and providing false information on an old HAC form, cumulatively provides a valid reason for dismissal. Mr Tapp failed to comply with lawful and reasonable directions issued by Ausgrid concerning the safe performance of work. This will often, if not usually, constitute a valid reason for dismissal.[35] In addition, Mr Tapp acted dishonestly in relation to the HAC form on 10 July 2025.

• [18] Although Ausgrid did not identify Mr Tapp's conduct in relation to the HAC as a reason for dismissal in its termination letter, that does not preclude me from relying on the conduct to find there was a valid reason for dismissal.[36] I also consider it is appropriate for Mr Tapp's conduct in relation to the HAC to be taken into account because the failure to complete a HAC almost certainly contributed to the failure to wear appropriate PPE, and because the full extent of Mr Tapp's conduct in relation to the old HAC form did not emerge until the hearing of his unfair dismissal application.

[19] Given my findings above, I do not consider it is necessary to make findings in relation to the other conduct identified in Mr Tapp's termination letter. Mr Tapp's conduct immediately after the explosion and before Mr Howard arrived to assist him is difficult to assess. While I do not accept there is evidence to demonstrate Mr Tapp was suffering from delirium, Dr Jewell's report refers to an acute stress response, and Dr Kemper and Dr Oldham both provided evidence that the explosion is likely to have impacted Mr Tapp's subsequent behaviour. It is clear having viewed the footage that the explosion was an extreme event and Mr Tapp suffered serious injuries. Mr Tapp was also a well-regarded long-term employee of Ausgrid with no history of dishonesty. While I accept Mr Tapp's actions after the explosion are consistent with the explanation suggested by Ausgrid, they must be considered in the context of a dramatic and traumatic situation and Mr Tapp's overall good character. Mr Tapp's response to the investigation process or "doubling down" as submitted by Ausgrid is similarly difficult to assess in the unique circumstances of this case.

[20] My finding that there was a valid reason for Mr Tapp's dismissal weighs in favour of finding that Mr Tapp's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

• [21] Proper consideration of s.387(b) requires a finding to be made as to whether Mr Tapp "was notified of that reason". Contextually, the reference to "that reason" is the valid reason found to exist under s.387(a).[37]

• [22] Notification of a valid reason for termination must be given to an employee protected from unfair dismissal before the decision is made to terminate their employment,[38] and in explicit[39] and plain and clear terms.[40]

[23] I find Mr Tapp was notified about his failure to wear a face shield on 10 July 2025 prior to the decision being made to terminate his employment. This occurred via the Conduct Assessment Notice sent to Mr Tapp on 23 July 2025, the subsequent communications between Ausgrid and the ETU, and the meeting on 25 July 2025.

[24] Mr Tapp was not notified about the valid reasons I have identified concerning his failure to complete a HAC and about including false information on an old HAC form. However, that is largely because the full extent of Mr Tapp's conduct did not emerge until the hearing of his unfair dismissal application. I also consider Mr Tapp and Mr Howard knew what had occurred in relation to the old HAC form at all relevant times and did not disclose this to Ausgrid prior to Mr Tapp's dismissal. In those circumstances, I do not consider Ausgrid not notifying Mr Tapp about the reasons related to the HAC should weigh in favour of finding Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

Was Mr Tapp given an opportunity to respond to the reason?

[26] An employee protected from unfair dismissal should be provided with an opportunity to respond to any reason for their dismissal relating to their conduct or capacity. An opportunity to respond is to be provided before a decision is taken to terminate the employee's employment.[41]

• [27] The opportunity to respond does not require formality and this factor is to be applied in a common-sense way to ensure the employee is treated fairly.[42] Where the employee is aware of the precise nature of the employer's concern about his or her conduct or performance and has a full opportunity to respond to this concern, this is enough to satisfy the requirements.[43]

[28] I find Mr Tapp was provided with an opportunity to respond to the reason for dismissal concerning his failure to wear a face shield on 10 July 2025 prior to the decision being made to terminate his employment. This occurred via the Conduct Assessment Notice sent to Mr Tapp on 23 July 2025, the subsequent communications between Ausgrid and the ETU, and the meeting on 25 July 2025.

[29] I also find Mr Tapp was provided with an opportunity to respond to the reasons identified in his termination letter relating to his conduct after the explosion and his response to the investigation.

[30] Mr Tapp was not provided with an opportunity to respond to the reasons I have identified concerning his failure to complete a HAC and including false information on an old HAC form. However, as stated above, that is largely because the full extent of Mr Tapp's conduct did not emerge until the hearing of his unfair dismissal application and I consider Mr Tapp and Mr Howard knew what had occurred in relation to the old HAC form at all relevant times and did not disclose this to Ausgrid prior to Mr Tapp's dismissal. In those circumstances, I do not consider Ausgrid not providing Mr Tapp with an opportunity to respond to the valid reasons relating to the HAC should weigh in favour of finding Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.

Did Ausgrid unreasonably refuse to allow Mr Tapp to have a support person present to assist at discussions relating to the dismissal?

[32] There is no evidence that Ausgrid refused to allow Mr Tapp to have a support person present at any discussions. I consider this to be a neutral factor.

Was Mr Tapp warned about unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal?

[33] Mr Tapp was dismissed for misconduct as opposed to unsatisfactory performance. I consider this to be a neutral factor.

To what degree would the size of Ausgrid**'**s enterprise be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal?

[34] Ausgrid is a very large business. I consider that Ausgrid generally followed appropriate procedures in relation to Mr Tapp's dismissal. I consider this to be a neutral factor.

To what degree would the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in Ausgrid**'**s enterprise be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal?

[35] Ausgrid has dedicated human resource specialists and expertise. I consider that Ausgrid generally followed appropriate procedures in relation to Mr Tapp's dismissal. I consider this to be a neutral factor.

[36] Section 387(h) requires the Commission to take into account any other matters that it considers relevant.

[37] I consider Mr Tapp's extremely long period of largely unblemished service with Ausgrid is a matter that weighs in favour of finding that Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh.

[38] I consider the traumatic events that Mr Tapp endured on 10 July 2025 and the injuries he suffered while working overtime to try and resolve issues with the electricity grid for Ausgrid is a matter that weighs in favour of finding that Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh.

[39] Fifteen Ausgrid employees have been willing to provide evidence in support of Mr Tapp. The other employees are extremely supportive of Mr Tapp and clearly hold him in high regard. I consider the support from other employees is a matter that weighs in favour of finding Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh.

[40] I consider Mr Tapp's evidence about keeping old versions of a HAC form completed by Mr Howard for use when the electronic HAC is not working demonstrates a lack of respect for the importance of properly completing the HAC. I consider this is a matter that weighs against finding Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh.

[41] I consider Mr Tapp's very senior and responsible supervisory position within Ausgrid is a matter that is relevant given the safety breaches committed by Mr Tapp. I consider this is a matter that weighs against finding Mr Tapp's dismissal was harsh.

[42] I have made findings in relation to each matter specified in s.387 of the FW Act. I must consider and give due weight to each as a fundamental element in determining whether the termination was harsh, unjust, or unreasonable.[44]

[43] I find on balance that Mr Tapp's dismissal was not harsh, unjust, or unreasonable. Although there are several other matters that support a finding of harshness, I do not consider a finding of harshness is appropriate in all the circumstances. I have found that there was a valid reason for Mr Tapp's dismissal and I consider Mr Tapp's cumulative misconduct in relation to not wearing PPE and the HAC was serious. If Mr Tapp's only misconduct had been failing to wear the face shield at the end of a long shift, I would have had little hesitation in finding dismissal to be harsh in all the circumstances. However, the additional safety breach concerning the non-completion of a HAC and then the dishonest behaviour concerning the old HAC form tips the balance in favour of finding that Mr Tapp's dismissal was not harsh.

[44] I find that Mr Tapp was not unfairly dismissed by Ausgrid.

Ms V Bulut of counsel with Ms F Booth from Seyfarth Shaw representing Ausgrid.

A1 Statement of Melissa Harries (Psychologist) dated 27 October 2025.

A2 Statement of Michael Tapp (Applicant) dated 31 October 2025.

A3 Reply statement of Mr Tapp dated 27 November 2025.

A4 Statement of Michael Andrews (District Operator) dated 18 October 2025.

A5 Statement of Steven Edwards (Area Operator) dated 26 October 2025.

A6 Statement of Stephen Fitzpatrick (Network Connections Coordinator) dated 21 October 2025.

A7 Statement of Tim Holman (System Operator) dated 23 October 2025.

A8 Statement of John Huw Jarman (Supervisory System Operator) dated 20 October 2025.

A9 Statement of Joseph Khamphimoon (Area Operator) dated 20 October 2025.

A10 Statement of Andrew Levings (Connected Customer ANS Manager) dated 20 October 2025.

A11 Statement of Scott Lewis (Network Connections Coordinator) dated 20 October 2025.

A12 Statement of Bruce Lill (System Operator) dated 21 October 2025.

A13 Statement of Greg Mulvaney (District Operator) dated 21 October 2025.

A14 Statement of Scott Obey (District Operator) dated 18 October 2025.

A15 Statement of Sean Russell (PAC Technician) dated 22 October 2025.

A16 Statement of Brendan Sloey (District Operator) dated 21 October 2025.

A17 Statement of Scott Stanborough (Class 1A District Operator) dated 22 October 2025.

A18 Statement of Matthew Howard (Operating Depot Supervisor - Eastern CBD) dated 31 October 2025.

A19 Statement of Dr Trevor Kemper (General Practitioner) dated 30 October 2025.

A20 Statement of Tara Koot (ETU - Power Industry Coordinator) dated 31 October 2025.

A21 Statement of Agatha Williams (Partner of Mr Tapp) dated 31 October 2025.

A22 Email thread from 20 February 2025 to 19 March 2025 regarding issues with face shields.

A23 Email thread from 1 July 2025 concerning issues with face shields.

A24 Email thread from 4 July 2025 concerning alternative face shields.

R1 Bundle of records from St George Hospital concerning Mr Tapp's attendance on 10 July and 11 July 2025.

R2 Bundle of records from Wollongong Hospital concerning Mr Tapp's attendance on 11 July 2025.

R3 Copy of a Hazard Assessment Check (HAC) form signed by Mr Tapp on 10 July 2025.

R4 Statement of Darren Jenkins (Electrical Safety Manager) dated 21 November 2025.

R5 Statement of Megan Strong (Head of Health & Safety - Operations) dated 21 November 2025.

R6 Statement of Nathan O'Keefe (Head of Operating & Emergency Response - Field Delivery Group) dated 21 November 2025.

R7 Statement of Dr James Jewell (Psychiatrist) dated 21 November 2025.

[1] The ETU is a division of the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia.

[2] Sayer v Melsteel Pty Ltd [2011] FWAFB 7498, [14]; Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [69].

[3] Selvachandran v Peteron Plastics Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 333; (1995) 62 IR 371, 373.

[5] Walton v Mermaid Dry Cleaners Pty Ltd [1996] IRCA 267; (1996) 142 ALR 681, 685.

[6] Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [7].

[7] King v Freshmore (Vic) Pty Ltd Print S4213 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Williams SDP, Hingley C, 17 March 2000), [23]-[24].

[11] O'Keefe statement Ex R6 at [51]; Strong Statement Ex R5 at [12].

[12] Jenkins statement Ex R4, Annexure DJJ-2.

[16] Transcript at PN149 and PN150 for Mr Tapp, Transcript at PN970 for Mr Howard.

[17] Strong statement at [13] Ex R5, O'Keefe statement at [16] Ex R6, Transcript at PN163, PN180, PN1046 to PN1069.

[22] Tapp reply statement Ex A3 at [5].

[27] O'Keefe statement Ex R6, Annexure NRO-10.

[28] O'Keefe statement Ex R6, Annexure NRO-8.

[30] Howard statement Ex A18 at [27] to [30].

[33] O'Keefe statement Ex R6, Annexure NRO-10.

[34] O'Keefe statement Ex R6, Annexure NRO-8.

[35] B, C and D v Australian Postal Corporation [2013] FWCFB 6191 at [36].

[36] Commonwealth of Australia (Australian Taxation Office) t/a Australian Taxation Office v Shamir [2016] FWCFB 4185, [45] citing Shepherd v Felt & Textiles of Australia Ltd (1931) 45 CLR 359, 377-8.

[37] Bartlett v Ingleburn Bus Services Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 6429, [19]; Reseigh v Stegbar Pty Ltd [2020] FWCFB 533, [55].

[38] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd (2000) 98 IR 137, 151.

[39] Previsic v Australian Quarantine Inspection Services Print Q3730 (AIRC, Holmes C, 6 October 1998).

[41] Crozier v Palazzo Corporation Pty Ltd t/a Noble Park Storage and Transport Print S5897 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Acton SDP, Cribb C, 11 May 2000), [75].

[42] RMIT v Asher [2010] FWAFB 1200; (2010) 194 IR 1, 14-15.

[43] Gibson v Bosmac Pty Ltd [1995] IRCA 222; (1995) 60 IR 1, 7.

[44] ALH Group Pty Ltd t/a The Royal Exchange Hotel v Mulhall (2002) 117 IR 357, [51]. See also Smith v Moore Paragon Australia Ltd PR915674 (AIRCFB, Ross VP, Lacy SDP, Simmonds C, 21 March 2002), [92]; Edwards v Justice Giudice [1999] FCA 1836, [6]-[7].

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer