Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Year2013
Date2013
CourtFederal Court

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
11 cases
  • Pigozzo v Mineral Resources Ltd
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 29 Septiembre 2022
    ...Egan [2018] FCA 1320 Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd (No 2) [1984] HCA 73; (1984) 156 CLR 414 Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908; (2013) 238 IR 307 Mutual Life & Citizens’ Assurance Co Ltd v Evatt [1970] UKPCHCA 2; (1970) 122 CLR 628 Niven v Grant (1903) 29 VLR 102 O......
  • Alam v National Australia Bank Limited
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 8 Octubre 2021
    ...for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs v FAK19 [2021] FCAFC 153 Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908, (2013) 238 IR 307 MZAPC v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2021] HCA 17 National Tertiary Education Industry Union v University of......
  • Cummins South Pacific Pty Ltd v Keenan
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 24 Noviembre 2020
    ...Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 452 Milardovic v Vemco Services Pty Ltd (Administrators Appointed) [2016] FCA 19 Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908 PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King [2020] FCAFC 15 Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd (No 3) [2012] FCA 697 Project Blue Sky Inc v Austra......
  • Qantas Airways Limited v Flight Attendants' Association of Australia
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 17 Diciembre 2020
    ...Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2020] HCA 29; (2020) 381 ALR 601 Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908 Spence v Queensland [2019] HCA 15; (2019) 93 ALJR 643 WorkPac Pty Ltd v Rossato [2020] FCAFC 84; (2020) 378 ALR 585 Division: General Division Re......
  • Get Started for Free
2 firm's commentaries
  • Seeking legal advice is an employee's workplace right
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 13 Septiembre 2013
    ...recent Federal Court ruling (Murrihy v Betezy.com.au Pty Ltd [2013] FCA 908) has confirmed the broad application of the protection provided by Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (FW Act) for employees making complaints or inquiries in relation to their An employee complained to the Ch......
  • Workplace rights update: lessons in vigilance for employers
    • Australia
    • Mondaq Australia
    • 27 Enero 2014
    ...reason. Protection arising from the employee's express intention to obtain legal advice In the decision of Murrihy v Betezy.com.au [2013] FCA 908, the employer was found to have engaged in adverse action against an employee by reason of a workplace right after threatening the employee with ......