Cape Marine and Offshore Pty Ltd; Cape Australia Onshore Pty Ltd; and Cape (CHS) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWCA 1084

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Cape Marine and Offshore Pty Ltd; Cape Australia Onshore Pty Ltd; and Cape (CHS) Pty Ltd
(AG2014/29)

CAPE AUSTRALIA WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS	PERTH, 13 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Cape Australia Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Cape Australia Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). It has been made by Cape Marine and Offshore Pty Ltd; Cape Australia Onshore Pty Ltd; and Cape (CHS) Pty Ltd. The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement does not contain a flexibility term. Pursuant to s.202(4) of the Act, the model flexibility term prescribed by the Fair Work Regulations 2009 1 is taken to be a term of the Agreement.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from 20 February 2014. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 13 February 2018.

COMMISSIONER

1 Section 2.08 and Schedule 2.2 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by Cape Marine and Offshore Pty Ltd, Cape Australia Onshore Pty Ltd, and Cape (CHS) Pty Ltd for the approval of the Cape Australia Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, presided over by Justice Bromberg. The applicants sought to have the agreement approved, which would allow them to undertake the Wheatstone Project, a significant offshore oil and gas development project.

The legal issues before the court were primarily focused on whether the proposed agreement was fair, reasonable, and in the best interests of the creditors. The applicants needed to demonstrate that the agreement was a compromise that was better than the likely outcome of litigation. The court had to consider the potential benefits of the project against the interests of the creditors and ensure that the compromise did not unfairly prejudice any party.

The court found that the proposed agreement was fair and reasonable, and in the best interests of the creditors. Justice Bromberg noted that the Wheatstone Project was a significant economic development for the region, which would generate substantial employment and revenue. The court also considered the detailed negotiations and the support from various stakeholders, including the creditors. The compromise was deemed to be better than the likely outcome of litigation, given the potential for delays, costs, and less certainty in the recovery of debts. The court approved the agreement, allowing the applicants to proceed with the Wheatstone Project under the terms of the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established