Coote v Mainline Access Pty Ltd & Anor (No.3)

In *Coote v Mainline Access Pty Ltd & Anor (No.3)*, the applicant sought to set aside consent orders that had been made after the Court had published its reasons for judgment concerning the respondents' contravention of provisions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth). The application was heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the consent orders were interlocutory, whether the Court possessed jurisdiction under its implied incidental powers to set aside such orders, and whether a failure of the consent orders to reflect or be consistent with the Court's prior findings constituted a valid ground for setting them aside. The Court also considered whether the consent orders were supported by the findings it had previously made.

Judge Manousaridis reasoned that while consent orders are generally final, the Court retained an inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders, including consent orders, in circumstances where they were inconsistent with the Court's findings or where there was a miscarriage of justice. The Court found that the consent orders in this instance were not supported by its prior findings and were inconsistent with them, thereby justifying their being set aside. The Court also addressed the construction of s.323(1) of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth), noting the absence of settled authority that contravention of this section occurs solely due to an employer's failure to pay an amount due under a contract of employment for work performed.

The Court ordered that the consent orders be set aside on terms. The application for costs was dismissed, with the Court finding that the respondents had not acted unreasonably.