Billy Williams-Noonan v Griffith University

[2015] FWCFB 7675

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Billy Williams-Noonan
v
Griffith University
(C2015/6796)

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMILTON
COMMISSIONER JOHNS

MELBOURNE, 11 NOVEMBER 2015

Appeal against decision [2015] FWC 6502 of Deputy President Kovacic at Melbourne on 18 September 2015 in matter number C2015/792 – Permission to appeal – Whether arguable case of error – Whether grounds of appeal attract the public interest – Permission to appeal not granted – Fair Work Act 2009 – ss. 365 and 604.

[1] This decision is an edited version of a decision give on transcript at the conclusion of the hearing on 28 October 2015. The decision under appeal is a decision of Deputy President Kovacic declining to grant an extension of time for filing a general protections application under the Fair Work Act2009. The application was lodged 245 days outside the statutory timeframe.

[2] It is clear from the decision of the Deputy President and also from the submissions made to us that there is an unfortunate set of circumstances involved in this matter. However the decision is classically a discretionary decision where the Deputy President was required pursuant to the provisions of s.366 of the Act to consider whether there were exceptional circumstances taking into account a number of specified matters.

[3] An appeal against such a decision can only be granted if it is demonstrated that the discretion was not properly exercised because of an error in the exercise of the discretion.

[4] Permission to appeal can be granted if there is an arguable case of error and it must be granted if it is considered by this Bench that the public interest is attracted in a matter. An appeal is not a redetermination of the matter.

[5] Having regard to all of the circumstances we are not satisfied that there is an arguable case of error in the Deputy President's decision. It appears to us that he considered all of the relevant factors and made findings clearly available on the evidence before him.

[6] Further we are not satisfied that it is in the public interest that permission to appeal be granted in this case. It appears to us that the applicant for permission to appeal is seeking an alternative result, but in essence is seeking to reargue the points that were raised and considered by the Deputy President.

[7] In those circumstances we decline to grant permission to appeal. The application for permission to appeal is dismissed.

VICE PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Mr D. Noonan on behalf of Mr B. Williams-Noonan.

Mr K. Greedy on behalf of Griffith University.

Hearing details:

2015.

Sydney – Video Link to Brisbane and Hobart.

28 October.

Final written submissions:

Mr B. Williams-Noonan on 19 October 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Billy Williams-Noonan, a former student of Griffith University, filed an appeal against a decision made by Deputy President Kovacic at the Fair Work Commission in Melbourne on 18 September 2015. The case, numbered C2015/792, pertained to an earlier decision concerning the dismissal of Williams-Noonan from the university. Williams-Noonan sought permission to appeal the decision, arguing that there was an arguable case of error and that the grounds of appeal attracted the public interest. The appeal was lodged under the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections 365 and 604.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether there was an arguable case of error in the earlier decision and whether the grounds of appeal were of sufficient public interest to warrant permission to appeal. The court had to consider the merits of Williams-Noonan's claims and determine if they were substantial enough to merit a higher court review. The court also needed to evaluate if the appeal would contribute significantly to the public interest, considering the broader implications of the case on the application of employment law.

The court found that the arguable case of error presented by Williams-Noonan did not meet the threshold required for permission to appeal. The court determined that the grounds of appeal did not sufficiently demonstrate an arguable case of error and did not attract the public interest as needed. Consequently, the court denied permission for the appeal. The decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and arguments presented, concluding that the appeal did not meet the necessary criteria for further judicial review.

The final orders of the court were that permission to appeal the decision of Deputy President Kovacic was not granted. The court's ruling upheld the earlier decision, leaving it as the final determination of the case. This decision underscores the stringent requirements for permission to appeal and the importance of demonstrating both an arguable case of error and a significant public interest in the matter.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established