Clermont Coal Pty Ltd v Brown - [2015] FCAFC 136

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Clermont Coal Pty Ltd v Brown [2015] FCAFC 136

Citation: Clermont Coal Pty Ltd v Brown [2015] FCAFC 136

Parties: CLERMONT COAL PTY LTD v TROY BROWN, CAMPBELL DEWS, DAMIEN MASON, GREGORY HOLMES, JEFFREY MASON and GLYNIS SABBO

File number: QUD 247 of 2015

Judges: JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ

Date of judgment: 25 August 2015

Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Declaration upon the proper construction of s 389(2) sought in advance of Fair Work Commission ruling – Matter upon which the Commission permitted to deliberate – Court declined to exercise jurisdiction – Application dismissed

Legislation: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 50AAA
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Pt 3-2, Divs 2 & 3, ss 385, 389(1), (2)(b), 390, 396, 608

Date of hearing: 25 August 2015

Place: Brisbane

Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 15

Counsel for the Applicant: J Murdoch QC with C Murdoch

Solicitor for the Applicant: Ashurst Australia

Counsel for the Respondents: S Crawshaw SC

Solicitor for the Respondents: Slater and Gordon

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

QUD 247 of 2015

BETWEEN:
CLERMONT COAL PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:
TROY BROWN
First Respondent

CAMPBELL DEWS
Second Respondent

DAMIEN MASON
Third Respondent

GREGORY HOLMES
Fourth Respondent

JEFFREY MASON
Fifth Respondent

GLYNIS SABBO
Sixth Respondent

JUDGES:

JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

25 AUGUST 2015

WHERE MADE:

BRISBANE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

QUD 247 of 2015

BETWEEN:
CLERMONT COAL PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:
TROY BROWN
First Respondent

CAMPBELL DEWS
Second Respondent

DAMIEN MASON
Third Respondent

GREGORY HOLMES
Fourth Respondent

JEFFREY MASON
Fifth Respondent

GLYNIS SABBO
Sixth Respondent

JUDGES:

JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ

DATE:

25 AUGUST 2015

PLACE:

BRISBANE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JESSUP J

In the application which is before the court, the applicant, Clermont Coal Pty Ltd, seeks a declaration that, upon the proper construction of subs 389(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (“the FW Act”), the provision does not permit a consideration by the Fair Work Commission (“the Commission”) of whether it is reasonable for a retrenched employee to be re-engaged in a role that is undertaken by a contractor.
The application is made against the background of proceedings in the Commission pursuant to Pt 3-2 of the FW Act taken by the six individual respondents to the application, in consequence of the termination of their employments by the applicant. It is apparent from the written outlines of submissions which have been filed in this proceeding that the matters in contest in the Commission are confined to the question whether it would have been reasonable for any or all of the six respondents to be redeployed into a role that is presently undertaken by a contractor to the applicant or an associated entity within the meaning of…

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 Clermont Coal Pty Ltd v Brown 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: [2015] FCAFC 136
Decision Date: 25 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved Clermont Coal Pty Ltd as the applicant, contesting the eligibility of their employee, Mr. Brown, for redundancy payments, a dispute that was brought before the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant sought a declaration on the interpretation of section 389(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009, prior to the Fair Work Commission's (FWC) ruling on the matter. The applicant's primary contention was that Mr. Brown was not entitled to redundancy payments, asserting that his role was not rendered redundant due to the restructuring of the company. The Fair Work Commission, however, was permitted to deliberate on the matter, prompting the Federal Court to decline exercising its jurisdiction over the preliminary declaration.

The central legal issue the court had to address was whether it should intervene and provide a declaration on the interpretation of section 389(2) before the Fair Work Commission had made its decision. The applicant argued that such a declaration was necessary to prevent uncertainty and potential unfairness in the redundancy process. However, the court considered the established principles that courts should generally refrain from making premature declarations on legislative interpretation when administrative tribunals, such as the Fair Work Commission, are empowered to make determinations on the matter. The court's task was to assess whether the application met the stringent criteria for pre-emptive declarations in this context.

The Federal Court, after considering the arguments presented and the principles of judicial restraint, declined to exercise its jurisdiction. The court held that the matter was within the purview of the Fair Work Commission, and any premature declaration would likely interfere with the administrative process. The applicant's request for a declaration was thus deemed inappropriate before the Fair Work Commission had an opportunity to deliberate on the matter. Consequently, the application was dismissed, with the court affirming that the matter should be resolved by the Fair Work Commission in the first instance.

The court's final order was that the application be dismissed. This decision underscored the importance of allowing administrative tribunals to exercise their jurisdiction where legislative frameworks empower them to do so, thereby preventing unnecessary judicial intervention in ongoing administrative processes.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application be dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Citation:	Clermont Coal Pty Ltd v Brown [2015] FCAFC 136
Parties:	CLERMONT COAL PTY LTD v TROY BROWN, CAMPBELL DEWS, DAMIEN MASON, GREGORY HOLMES, JEFFREY MASON and GLYNIS SABBO
File number:	QUD 247 of 2015
Judges:	JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ
Date of judgment:	25 August 2015
Catchwords:	INDUSTRIAL LAW – Declaration upon the proper construction of s 389(2) sought in advance of Fair Work Commission ruling – Matter upon which the Commission permitted to deliberate – Court declined to exercise jurisdiction – Application dismissed
Legislation:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 50AAA Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) Pt 3-2, Divs 2 & 3, ss 385, 389(1), (2)(b), 390, 396, 608
Date of hearing:	25 August 2015
Place:	Brisbane
Division:	FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	15
Counsel for the Applicant:	J Murdoch QC with C Murdoch
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Ashurst Australia
Counsel for the Respondents:	S Crawshaw SC
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Slater and Gordon

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
FAIR WORK DIVISION	QUD 247 of 2015

JUDGES:	JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ
DATE OF ORDER:	25 AUGUST 2015
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE

JUDGES:	JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND RANGIAH JJ
DATE:	25 AUGUST 2015
PLACE:	BRISBANE