DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.394—Unfair dismissal

Christopher Chambers
v
CA Investigations Pty Ltd
(U2020/6449)

COMMISSIONER SIMPSON

BRISBANE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2020

Application for an unfair dismissal remedy – whether binding settlement agreement was reached – application has no reasonable prospects of success – application dismissed.

[1] This matter concerns an application made by Mr Christopher Chambers (the Applicant) under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) alleging that he had been unfairly dismissed by his employer, CA Investigations Pty Ltd (the Respondent).

[2] The matter was listed for a conciliation before a Fair Work Commission conciliator on 15 June 2020, however it was not resolved and was subsequently allocated to me on 7 July 2020. The matter was listed for a conference before me on 16 July 2020.

[3] On 16 July 2020 my chambers received an email from the Applicant’s representative, Mr Stephen Gaffney of Unfair Dismissal Experts Pty Ltd, that read as follows:

“Hi all

We request to vacate the conference listed for 3pm today (16/07) as the parties have reached an agreement to settle the matter.

Kind regards…”

[4] On the same day the Respondent’s representative Mr Mark Curran of DWF Australia confirmed it consented to the adjournment and the conference was therefore vacated.

[5] On 6 August 2020, my chambers received an email from the Applicant that stated:

“I totally reject all settlement! Time has passed for all settlement I’ll be pursuing this further.”

[original text kept]

[6] The same day my Associate attempted to contact Mr Gaffney for an update on the matter, however the call was not answered, and a voicemail message was left. On 12 August 2020 my Associate again contacted Mr Gaffney, who was available and advised that he no longer acted for the Applicant. Mr Gaffney said that although there was no executed deed, the Applicant did agree to a settlement, however has since rejected it because he did not realise the amount would be subject to tax. Mr Gaffney confirmed that the Applicant told him that the offer was accepted.

[7] On 19 August 2020, Mr Curran sent an email to my chambers containing three email attachments and advising that it was the Respondent’s position that the proceedings had been settled.

[8] The first attachment was a letter of offer dated 15 July 2020 from the Respondent that was addressed to Mr Gaffney. The second document was a letter dated 16 July 2020 from Mr Gaffney to Mr Curran that read as follows:

“Dear Mark,

We refer to your email and offer of 15/07.
We have been instructed to accept the proposed offer. Please prepare the deed and send through a copy to us.

Kind regards…”

[9] The third attachment from Mr Curran was a Deed of Release and settlement sent to Mr Gaffney on 21 July 2020.

[10] I listed the matter for a Mention on 20 August 2020 by telephone. The Applicant appeared on his own behalf and Mr Curran…

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 Christopher Chambers v CA Investigations Pty Ltd 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: [2020] FWC 4704
Decision Date: 3 SEPTEMBER 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, the matter of Christopher Chambers v CA Investigations Pty Ltd was heard. The applicant, Mr. Chambers, sought a remedy for unfair dismissal from his employment. The dispute arose from a complex background involving allegations of misconduct and a subsequent settlement agreement. The respondent, CA Investigations Pty Ltd, contested the fairness of the dismissal and the validity of the settlement agreement. The court was tasked with determining whether the settlement agreement was binding and whether the dismissal was unfair.

The primary legal issue was whether a binding settlement agreement had been reached between the parties, effectively releasing the respondent from any further claims related to the dismissal. If the agreement was binding, the court had to consider whether it was appropriate to grant the applicant a remedy for unfair dismissal. Additionally, the court needed to assess the prospects of success for the applicant's application, given the existence of the settlement agreement.

The court examined the terms of the settlement agreement and the circumstances surrounding its execution. It found that the agreement was binding and that it clearly released the respondent from any further claims related to the dismissal. The court concluded that the applicant's application for an unfair dismissal remedy had no reasonable prospects of success, given the binding nature of the settlement agreement. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and no orders were made in favour of the applicant.

Orders