The appellant commenced a claim in the Industrial Magistrates Court (IMC) against the respondent employer alleging damaging action in contravention of section 97A of the Industrial Relations Act 1979 (The Act). The IMC struck out parts of her statement of claim as they did not disclose a cause of action under s. 97A and were not salvageable by further amendments; however, three distinct claims under s. 97A were preserved.

The appellant appealed the IMC's orders striking out parts of her statement of claim on the ground that Industrial Magistrate Scaddan made an error of fact by concluding that she was transferred to another position after her payroll contract ended. She contended that the Industrial Magistrate’s decision did not align with the facts, as she had successfully applied for another position.

The Full Bench considered that the Industrial Magistrate had not made any such a finding, and that her reasons for striking out parts of the pleadings was because the facts did not disclose a cause of action, not because she found the facts themselves unfounded.  The Full Bench further considered whether an appeal lies from any decision of the IMC to the Full Bench under section 84 of the Act, concluding that the reference to "decision" in section 84 means a final determination of the substantive application.

The Full Bench found that the Industrial Magistrate’s orders striking out parts of the appellant's statement of claim and particulars were not a final determination of her claims on their merits. The orders did not prevent the subject matter of a claim from being revived by a fresh and valid claim, subject to it being made within time. The Full Bench therefore dismissed the appeal.

The decision can be read here.