Choppair Helicopters Pty Ltd v Bobridge (No 2)
Case
•
[2018] FCA 700
•18 May 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Choppair Helicopters Pty Ltd v Bobridge (No 2) [2018] FCA 700
[2018] FCA 700
18 May 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Choppair Helicopters Pty Ltd, along with associated companies, appealed a decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia concerning claims by Ms Bobridge for accident make-up pay and specific superannuation payments under the Air Pilots Award 2010. The Federal Circuit Court had found in Ms Bobridge's favour on both claims, and the appeal was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge provided adequate reasons for finding Ms Bobridge entitled to accident make-up pay and specific superannuation payments, and if, upon redetermination, these claims were substantiated.
The Full Court found that the primary judge did not sufficiently justify the decision that Ms Bobridge was entitled to accident make-up pay, and therefore the claim in this regard failed. However, the court found that the primary judge did provide adequate reasons for the decision that Ms Bobridge was entitled to specific superannuation payments. Consequently, the court ordered that Ms Bobridge be paid $6,555.95 for accident make-up pay, to be sourced from the Court Litigants’ Fund. The remaining balance in the Court Litigants’ Fund was to be paid to Choppair. The appeal against the superannuation claim was dismissed, and the order regarding the accident make-up pay was set aside.
The court's decision included specific orders to ensure the payment of the accident make-up to Ms Bobridge and the distribution of any remaining funds in the Court Litigants’ Fund to Choppair. The orders made clear the responsibilities of the parties in executing these financial transfers, with detailed instructions given to the Registrar for the payment from the Court Litigants’ Fund to Ms Bobridge.
The Full Court found that the primary judge did not sufficiently justify the decision that Ms Bobridge was entitled to accident make-up pay, and therefore the claim in this regard failed. However, the court found that the primary judge did provide adequate reasons for the decision that Ms Bobridge was entitled to specific superannuation payments. Consequently, the court ordered that Ms Bobridge be paid $6,555.95 for accident make-up pay, to be sourced from the Court Litigants’ Fund. The remaining balance in the Court Litigants’ Fund was to be paid to Choppair. The appeal against the superannuation claim was dismissed, and the order regarding the accident make-up pay was set aside.
The court's decision included specific orders to ensure the payment of the accident make-up to Ms Bobridge and the distribution of any remaining funds in the Court Litigants’ Fund to Choppair. The orders made clear the responsibilities of the parties in executing these financial transfers, with detailed instructions given to the Registrar for the payment from the Court Litigants’ Fund to Ms Bobridge.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Industrial Law
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Breach of Contract
-
Compensatory Damages
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
O'Loughlin v Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd [2024] FedCFamC2G 971
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Budathoki v Consult Security Pty Ltd and Ors (No.2)
[2020] FCCA 2372
Kroeger v Mornington Peninsula Shire Council
[2019] FCCA 2313
O'Loughlin v Queen Victoria Market Pty Ltd
[2024] FedCFamC2G 971
Cases Cited
3
Statutory Material Cited
2
4 yearly review of modern awards—transitional provisions
[2015] FWCFB 3523
Bobridge v Choppair Helicopters Pty Ltd
[2016] FCCA 2301