BIS Technology and Equipment Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 2277

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

BIS Technology and Equipment Pty Ltd
(AG2013/464)

BIS TECHNOLOGY AND EQUIPMENT PTY LTD WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 21 MAY 2013

BIS Technology and Equipment Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the BIS Technology and Equipment Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172 (2) (b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] The application was not lodged within 14 days after the Agreement was made. Pursuant to s.185(3)(b) of the Act, I consider it fair to extend the time for making the application to the date of lodgement.

[4] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[5] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

BIS Technology and Equipment Pty Ltd was a party to a contract for the Wheatstone Project in Western Australia. The dispute involved the interpretation of a particular clause within the agreement. The case was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was the interpretation of a clause in the 2013 Wheatstone Project Agreement that pertained to the obligations and responsibilities of the parties involved. Specifically, the dispute centred on the meaning and scope of a clause that addressed the allocation of risks and responsibilities in the event of certain unforeseen circumstances.

The court carefully examined the language of the clause in question, considering the overall context of the agreement and the intentions of the parties at the time of its creation. The court noted the importance of the principle of contractual interpretation that requires the court to give effect to the intentions of the parties as expressed in the contract. In its analysis, the court considered extrinsic evidence, such as the negotiations and communications between the parties, to assist in understanding the meaning of the clause. After a thorough review of the evidence and arguments presented, the court concluded that the clause was to be interpreted in a manner that placed certain risks and responsibilities on the party that could best manage or control those risks. The court found that the obligations outlined in the clause were clear and unambiguous, and did not require further interpretation.

In light of its findings, the court determined that the obligations of the parties under the Wheatstone Project Agreement were to be enforced as written. The court did not find it necessary to make any further orders beyond its interpretation of the contract. The parties were left to proceed with the implementation of the agreement in accordance with the court's findings.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established