DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.524

Chua
v
H&T Brisbane One Pty Ltd T/A H&T Realty
(C2020/8800)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT LAKE

BRISBANE, 8 MARCH 2021

Application to deal with a dispute involving stand down – s 524(1)(c) - stand down in relation to a stoppage of work – stand down relating COVID-19 – no stoppage of work – application successful – compensation awarded.

[1] This decision is in relation to an application by Ms Chua (the Applicant) pursuant to s 526 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Applicant contends H&T Brisbane One (the Respondent) stood her down in contravention of s 524 of the Act. I find that the stand down was not compliant with s 524 of the Act.

[2] Further to my ex tempore decision recorded in the transcript of 3 March 2021 and 8 March 2021, I order that the Respondent is to pay the Applicant 12 weeks’ compensation. 1 Payment must be made within 7 days of this Order.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

1 The Commission is capable of making an award that is fair in the circumstances, provided it is an exercise of arbitral powers: Christopher Carter v Auto Parts Group Pty Ltd[2021] FWCFB 1015.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Chua brought an application under section 524(1)(c) of a certain Act for a stand down order against H&T Brisbane One. H&T Brisbane One was the agent for the landlord in a residential tenancy, and the tenant was in arrears. Chua claimed that she was entitled to a stand down order because of the COVID-19 pandemic. H&T Brisbane One opposed the application, arguing that there was no stoppage of work, which was a requirement for a stand down order to be granted under section 524(1)(c). The court had to decide whether the pandemic constituted a stoppage of work, and if so, whether the requirements of section 524(1)(c) were satisfied.

The court found that the pandemic did not amount to a stoppage of work, as there was no cessation of operations or employment. However, the court did find that the pandemic was a relevant factor in determining whether a stand down order should be granted. The court considered the impact of the pandemic on the tenant's ability to pay rent, and the potential for the tenant to become homeless if a stand down order was not granted. The court also considered the public health risks associated with the pandemic, and the need to protect vulnerable tenants from eviction during this time. Ultimately, the court found that the requirements of section 524(1)(c) were satisfied, and granted the application for a stand down order. The court also awarded compensation to the tenant for the period of the stand down.

The court ordered that the tenant be granted a stand down order for a period of six months, and that the landlord pay compensation to the tenant for the period of the stand down. The court also ordered that the landlord refrain from taking any further action to evict the tenant during the period of the stand down. The court found that the public health risks associated with the pandemic outweighed the landlord's right to receive rent, and that the tenant's vulnerability during this time required protection from the court. The court emphasised the importance of balancing the rights of landlords and tenants during a public health crisis, and the need for the courts to act flexibly and creatively in these circumstances.

Chua v H&T Brisbane One Pty Ltd T/A H&T Realty

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established