Angelina Ponte’s agonising wait of 19 months for a decision from Judge Catherine Symons was finally over on September 10.
The court’s guideline for judgment delivery is three months, so this one took six times longer.
In 2022, Ponte brought an unlawful termination claim against her employer, Greater National Holdings Pty Ltd. It was heard on January 31 and February 1, 2024 and was delivered to the anxious parties on September 10, 2025.
Ponte worked for the business for close to 20 years, and claimed that while on extended leave, after tripping over her employer’s dog, Rupert, and injuring her back, she received a letter alleging she had engaged in serious misconduct at work – which she denied.
Robert Sinclair, the proprietor of the business, claimed that Ponte didn’t mention any injury to him and that she appeared fit and well after the Rupert tumble.
This was followed up by an accusation that she hadn’t charged clients, particularly friends and relatives, commissions or fees on the insurance policies sold – and that this amounted to a loss of over $25,000 to the business.
Soon after she was “terminated”.
Symons J didn’t think Ponte was a “particularly impressive witness”, while her employer, Robert Sinclair, “was not an exemplar of impeccable witness behaviour either”.
This was not sufficient to make “wholesale findings” about their credit, but she preferred Sinclair’s evidence.
The applicant’s claim that GNH contravened the Fair Work Act when it sacked her was rejected.
Ponte v Greater National Holdings Pty Ltd (No 2)
≈ ≈ ≈
Judge Symons was slightly speedier in turning out her reasons in Naskoyski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd, but only by one month.
She heard it on January 29-30, 2024, and the decision arrived on July 8, 2025.
It’s another Fair Work case, where the applicant also alleged the employer took adverse action in response to the exercise of his rights.
Mr Naskoyski worked in the call centre for the Chinese-based home appliance company, Hisense. His claim of underpayment was upheld and an allegation that he had leaked confidential information was found to be unreliable.
That allegation surfaced following complaints and inquiries he made about his job.
Still, it wasn’t quite over when the reasons came down. The parties were required to agree to a form of orders to be made by the court, including a timetable for the provision of submissions and any further evidence on relief and penalty.
Naskoyski v Hisense Australia Pty Ltd
We had the unhappy duty to mention Judge Symons in April, pointing to her judgment turnaround time of more than two years to decide a costs issue in HPZP v Minister for Home Affairs.
The judge had a thriving industrial law practice in her days at Castan Chambers. She was elevated by Madam Cash.
Shocker from Sand Groping Beak
Several disasters prejudiced the case against property owner Yenny Tan, where it was alleged she hadn’t cleared land for fire breaks as required by the Bush Fires Act.
There were two counts of infringement, with Ms Tan self-represented before Magistrate Edward De Vries.
First of all, there was a mix-up about the address to which the fire-break notices should have been sent. The address on the certificate of title was not the appellant’s residential address at the time of the trial, and hadn’t been for some years.
She had, in fact, notified the Joondalup administration about her residential whereabouts and received a response.
Then there was the problem that she had not been provided copies of exhibits relied on by the prosecution during the trial.
This meant she did not know that the bush fire control officer had given incorrect evidence about her address.
There were at least three occasions during the trial where Ms Tan requested copies of exhibits or documents shown to witnesses be identified to her – none of which happened.
If that was not unfortunate enough, Magistrate De Vries was also running Tan’s case for her. He assumed the conduct of her evidence-in-chief from the outset.
On appeal Justice Gary Cobby in the WA Supremes found this had the effect of limiting the scope of her evidence and cutting off the case she wished to run.
“The difficulty, once the judicial officer conducting the hearing adopts the position of examining counsel, is that the judicial officer enters into the frame. The risk is that he or she becomes an inquisitor, rather than a judge.”
Cobby J said that the denial of procedural fairness gave rise to a miscarriage of justice.
“… The court breached a fundamental condition of its authority to determine the matter before it, namely that the appellant be given a reasonable opportunity of presenting her case.”
A verdict of acquittal was entered on the first charge, while the second charge goes back before a different beak.