A cause of action for damages for breach of statutory duty arises only where a statute, on its proper construction, is intended to provide a ground of civil liability; the Industrial Relations Act 1988 (Cth) discloses no such intention and indeed a contrary intention by providing specified enforcement mechanisms.

A claim for enforcement of a provision in an industrial agreement for payment to an employee is a claim for enforcement of an existing legal right and necessarily invokes the exercise of judicial power, which falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Industrial Magistrate's Court under s83.

Where a person seeks to make an unlawful termination application on grounds that include both prohibited grounds (which could be pursued under general protections provisions) and grounds not prohibited under relevant anti-discrimination law (which cannot be pursued under general protections), the person must elect to pursue either a general protections application for the prohibited grounds or an unlawful termination application restricted to the non-prohibited grounds; combining all grounds in a single unlawful termination application is barred by s.723.

A complaint under Commonwealth legislation that provides for complaint and investigation processes, and affords employment protections, constitutes 'an application or complaint under another law' for the purposes of s 732 of the Fair Work Act.

Unlawful termination cases often present as more complex than their surface appearance, with considerations beyond simple misconduct analysis affecting whether termination breaches statutory protections, and require careful legal analysis of factual context and legal consequences.

Section 734(1) of the Fair Work Act prevents a general protections court application from being made in relation to conduct that does not involve dismissal if an AHRC complaint concerning substantially the same conduct is extant and has not been withdrawn or failed for want of jurisdiction.

Section 725 prevents multiple applications of different prescribed kinds in relation to the same dismissal; the point of the section is to restrict the ability of a person to pursue multiple causes of action in respect of the same dismissal.

For the purpose of s725, an application has not 'failed for want of jurisdiction' merely because it was dismissed after a member refused to grant an extension of time within a statutory deadline; the failure to extend time is a procedural dismissal, not a jurisdiction failure.

Where a local government is not a national system employer and is not a constitutionally covered entity, an applicant is not precluded by section 723 of the Fair Work Act from bringing an unlawful termination application under section 773.

There is no statutory basis to extrapolate a 'full-time equivalent' rate when applying the high income threshold; the threshold applies to actual earnings.

Where an entitlement arises under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (such as notice of termination), it cannot be recovered as a denied contractual benefit under WA jurisdiction but must be enforced in accordance with the Fair Work Act.

The test for incapacity to pay redundancy under s.120(1)(b)(ii) is whether the employer 'cannot pay the amount', not whether the employer would prefer not to pay or would make different business choices.