This case involved an unfair dismissal claim by Peter Hopkins against the City of Canning. After a scheduled conciliation conference was missed by both parties, and following the applicant's filing of a Notice of Discontinuance, the Western Australian Industrial Relations Commission formally dismissed the application. The judgment contains no substantive legal reasoning about unfair dismissal law, as the matter was resolved procedurally through discontinuance.

Peter Hopkins v City of Canning [2003] WAIRComm 7829 (4 March 2003)

_______________________________________________________________________________

Result Application alleging unfair dismissal dismissed

_______________________________________________________________________________

WHEREAS this is an application pursuant to Section 29(1)(b)(i) of the Industrial Relations Act 1979; and

WHEREAS on 24 October 2002 the Commission convened a conference for the purpose of conciliating between the parties; and

WHEREAS there was no attendance by either party at the conference; and

WHEREAS on 24 October 2002 the Commission contacted the parties who advised that another application had been discontinued in relation to the same parties and they were not aware of this matter; and

WHEREAS on 6 December 2002 the Applicant filed a Notice of Discontinuance in respect of the application; and

NOW THEREFORE, the Commission, pursuant to the powers conferred on it under the Industrial Relations Act 1979, hereby orders:

Peter Hopkins v City of Canning [2003] WAIRComm 7829

At a glance

Result

Cited legislation

Plain English Summary

Judgment (11 paragraphs)

Peter Hopkins v City of Canning [2003] WAIRComm 7829 (4 March 2003)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

AI Analysis