Legal Research
Cases
Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Hadfield

Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Hadfield

Link copied

Case Copied 21 April 2015 14 min read

Contents

On this page

[2015] FWCFB 2618

The attached document replaces the document previously issued with the above code on 21 April 2015.

The document has been edited to correct a typographical error in paragraph [7] by replacing the word “then” with the word “than”.

Catherine Taylor

Associate to Vice President Hatcher.

Dated 28 April 2015

[2015] FWCFB 2618

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Asciano Services Pty Ltd
v
Zak Hadfield
(C2015/2331)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS
DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAWRENCE

SYDNEY, 21 APRIL 2015

Appeal against an unpublished decision of Commissioner Riordan at Sydney on 25 March 2015 in matter number U2014/15137 - refusal of respondent to have legal representation.

Introduction

[1] Asciano Services Pty Ltd (the Appellant) has filed a notice of appeal under s.604 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in which it seeks permission to appeal and appeals an unpublished decision of Commissioner Riordan issued on 25 March 2015 (Decision). In that Decision the Commissioner refused an application made by the Appellant pursuant to s.596 of the FW Act to be represented by a lawyer in unfair dismissal proceedings. The Appellant seeks that permission to appeal be granted, the Decision be set aside and the Full Bench order that the Appellant be granted permission to be represented by lawyers.

Background

[2] The underlying matter before the Commission relates to an application made by Mr Zak Hadfield (the Respondent) for an unfair dismissal remedy against the Appellant. On 27 February 2015 the Appellant filed submissions in support of an application pursuant to s.596 that it be represented by a lawyer and on 3 March 2015 the Respondent’s representative, the Australian Rail, Tram, and Bus Industry Union (RTBU) filed submissions objecting to the Appellant being represented by a lawyer. Supplementary submissions were filed by both parties on 5 March 2015 and in response to the Commissioner’s request for further information the Appellant filed additional submissions on 11 March 2015.

The Decision

[3] The Decision the subject of this appeal was in the form of a letter to the parties. We set it out here in full:

“I thank the parties for their submissions in relation to section 596 of the Fair Work Act, 2009 (the Act).

When determining such an application, I have to take note of section 596(2) of the Act.

Having taken into account all of the submissions, the Respondent's application to be legally represented in this matter is refused.

I do not believe that this matter is of such complexity that legal representation will allow the matter to be dealt with more efficiently. I am confident that the Respondent can represent itself effectively based on the skills and experience of its employees. I do not believe that it is unfair to the Respondent not to allow it to be represented after taking into account fairness between the Respondent and the Applicant's representative.”

Submissions

Appellant’s submissions

[4] In its submissions in support of its application for permission to appeal, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Hadfield and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] FWCFB 2618
Decision Date: 21 APRIL 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Asciano Services Pty Ltd v Hadfield, the appellant, Asciano Services Pty Ltd, appealed against an unpublished decision rendered by Commissioner Riordan on 25 March 2015 in matter number U2014/15137. The dispute revolves around the refusal of the respondent, Hadfield, to engage legal representation during the proceedings. The matter was heard in the Fair Work Commission, a tribunal with jurisdiction over employment and workplace relations matters in Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the respondent's refusal to have legal representation constituted a valid reason for the refusal of legal aid. The appellant argued that the refusal to have legal representation impacted the fairness and efficiency of the proceedings, while the respondent contended that personal circumstances justified their decision. The court had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and the obligations of the parties in employment disputes before the Fair Work Commission.

The Fair Work Commission reviewed the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, which mandate that all parties have an equal opportunity to present their cases. The court found that while the respondent had the right to self-representation, the refusal to have legal representation did not inherently violate their rights. However, the court also considered the potential impact on the proceedings' fairness and efficiency. Ultimately, the court ruled that the refusal to engage legal representation did not constitute a valid reason for the denial of legal aid. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original decision made by Commissioner Riordan.

Orders