How We Write

Every article we publish begins with a single, unchanging commitment: to ground our work in primary sources and to present the law accurately, however complex the material. Whether we are writing about a Federal Court decision or an Industrial Court award, the process is the same.

Take Kuhendran and the Hostile Workplace. That article started with the Industrial Court’s 44‑page award, written by Chairman Augustine Anthony. The award did not merely find in Kuhendran’s favour; it dismantled the company’s case point by point — the vague performance allegations, the failure to use a Performance Improvement Plan, the sexually charged messages sent by the bullying manager on the company’s own messaging system, and the timing of the show‑cause letter, issued just three months after Kuhendran complained to headquarters in New York. The chairman’s language was blunt: “Malice is all over the Company’s action.” We read the award slowly, tracing those findings and marking the exact passages that carried the weight of the decision.

The award itself gave us the core material: the chairman’s findings, the legal reasoning, and the exact words Kuhendran wrote in his reply. To locate this case in the first place, we regularly scan reputable news reports for new decisions. When we find a promising case, we try to access the written award or judgment. The news reports also help us verify the procedural history — for example, how many tiers of court a case has been through — and they sometimes provide background details — about the people involved, the timeline, or the wider circumstances — that a judgment or award rarely includes. We also refer to legal blogs and commentary by practising lawyers, which can offer early analysis of new decisions or clarify complex legal points.

We then cross‑checked the legal principles. The Industrial Court’s jurisdiction rests on the Industrial Relations Act 1967, and the case turned on whether the dismissal was without just cause or excuse. We read the relevant sections of the Act, verified the procedural history, and satisfied ourselves that the article accurately reflected both the reasoning and its limits. Nothing was paraphrased from memory alone.

Before writing, we map the article’s structure: a hook that places the reader in Kuhendran’s shoes, the background of seven years of service, the show‑cause and dismissal, the Industrial Court’s detailed findings, practical takeaways for HR and employers, and a closing thought that returns to the employee at the centre of the case. We write in plain English, but we never simplify the law. When a term like “retaliatory dismissal” or “Performance Improvement Plan” appears, we explain it in the text so the reader never needs to leave the page.

Every factual claim is checked against its source — the award or a reputable news report — before the article is published. If we cannot verify a detail, we leave it out. That discipline is not a constraint; it is the reason we can write with confidence.

When a written judgment or award isn’t yet available — as is sometimes the case with very recent decisions — we rely on reputable news reports. We state our sources clearly at the top of every article and stick strictly to the facts as reported. If a detail is uncertain, we either say so or leave it out. Transparency about sources is not a weakness; it is part of the trust we build with our readers.

The result is an article that is legally precise, factually reliable, and — above all — unmistakably human.

See examples of our work → Work Samples

justiciable.media