Appeal, s.400, s.604, Unfair dismissal

See LToma v Workforce Recruitment and Labour Services Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1102 (3 August 2020)

Case is a starting point for how to interpret s.400 for unfair dismissal appeals.

Paras [48]-[61]

Also see Rabbi Pinchas Ash v Chabad Institutions of Victoria Limited [2020] FWCFB 4448 (3 September 2020)

[29] We are satisfied that the grant of permission to appeal would be in the public interest. Rabbi Ash’s case has a number of unusual features: his employment lasted for over 40 years, he performed a specialist teaching role of importance to the Chabad community in Melbourne, his dismissal disconnected him from this role in the community, and he was 66 years old as at the date of the hearing before the Deputy President. Those circumstances suggest that dismissal is likely to have had significantly detrimental effects for Rabbi Ash, not just in terms of his financial position and his employment prospects but also in respect of his standing and prestige in the Chabad community. For that reason, we consider that the public interest dictates that there should be a full appellate review of the decision to ensure that no injustice is done to Rabbi Ash. Permission to appeal is therefore granted.