The Department further argues that Mr Belford’s proposed construction would result in an absurd result which is contrary to the intention of the legislative scheme. This is because the effect of Mr Belford’s proposed construction is that the employer cannot dismiss Mr Belford for conduct that, if committed by any other employee, would have warranted dismissal. Such a result is contrary to the objects and purposes of the VET Act. Consideration Mr Belford’s proposed construction of is contrary to the ordinary principles of ‘frustrated’ statutory interpretation. I with the Department that the word must be given its ordinary meaning, which ‘frustrated’ is to prevent something from progressing, succeeding, being fulfilled or being achieved. What is necessary before I can exercise my powers s 60G(5)? Mr Belford’s submissions Mr Belford says sole question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not any acts or ‘the omissions of [Mr Belford] had the effect of frustrating the [Training Contract] between [Mr Belford] and Swan Transit. If the Commission that the conduct of [Mr Belford] did not amount to the frustration of the [Training Contract], [Mr Belford’s] appeal must be upheld.’ Mr Belford submits the executive made an error in approving the application for termination on the basis that the Training Contract been or will be frustrated by the ‘has apprentices [sic] acts or omissions’. Mr Belford submits the chief executive’s decision was wrong’ and it was not open ‘manifestly to the chief executive to make such a finding. While Mr Belford does not dispute that the chief executive found that Mr Belford breached the Policy, Mr Belford submits that his breach of the Policy could not have contributed to frustrating the Training Contract. It was not Mr Belford’s acts or omissions that frustrated the Training Contract, but Swan Transit’s act of standing Mr Belford down. The Department’s submissions The Department argues that the chief executive’s decision correctly identifies Mr Belford’s acts or omissions, correctly identifies the purpose of the Training Contract and correctly
The Department further argues that Mr Belford’s proposed construction would result in an absurd result which is contrary to the intention of the legislative scheme. This is because the effect of Mr Belford’s proposed construction is that the employer cannot dismiss Mr Belford for conduct that, if committed by any other employee, would have warranted dismissal. Such a result is contrary to the objects and purposes of the VET Act. Consideration Mr Belford’s proposed construction of ‘frustrated’ is contrary to the ordinary principles of statutory interpretation. I with the Department that the word ‘frustrated’ must be given its ordinary meaning, which is to prevent something from progressing, succeeding, being fulfilled or being achieved. What is necessary before I can exercise my powers s 60G(5)? Mr Belford’s submissions Mr Belford says ‘the sole question to be determined in this appeal is whether or not any acts or omissions of [Mr Belford] had the effect of frustrating the [Training Contract] between [Mr Belford] and Swan Transit. If the Commission that the conduct of [Mr Belford] did not amount to the frustration of the [Training Contract], [Mr Belford’s] appeal must be upheld.’ Mr Belford submits the executive made an error in approving the application for termination on the basis that the Training Contract ‘has been or will be frustrated by the apprentices [sic] acts or omissions’. Mr Belford submits the chief executive’s decision was ‘manifestly wrong’ and it was not open to the chief executive to make such a finding. While Mr Belford does not dispute that the chief executive found that Mr Belford breached the Policy, Mr Belford submits that his breach of the Policy could not have contributed to frustrating the Training Contract. It was not Mr Belford’s acts or omissions that frustrated the Training Contract, but Swan Transit’s act of standing Mr Belford down. The Department’s submissions The Department argues that the chief executive’s decision correctly identifies Mr Belford’s acts or omissions, correctly identifies the purpose of the Training Contract and correctly
APA-3-2016-201600954.DOCX