DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

CPB Contractors Pty Limited
(AG2019/852)

LEIGHTON CONTRACTORS PTY LIMITED TOLL COLLECTORS’ AGREEMENT 2010

Miscellaneous
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HAMBERGER	SYDNEY, 30 APRIL 2019

Termination of the Leighton Contractors Pty Limited Toll Collectors’ Agreement 2010.

[1] On 25 March 2019, CPB Contractors Pty Limited applied for the termination of the Leighton Contractors Pty Limited Toll Collectors’ Agreement 2010 (the Agreement), under s.225 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The application was supported by a statutory declaration of Bradley James Hooper (Industrial Relations Manager NSW/ACT), dated 25 March 2019, which states that there are no employees covered by the Agreement.

[3] No opposition to the application was received from the Australian Workers’ Union, the employee organisation covered by the Agreement.

[4] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[5] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved CPB Contractors Pty Limited, contesting the termination of the Leighton Contractors Pty Limited Toll Collectors’ Agreement 2010. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. CPB Contractors sought to challenge the termination of the agreement, which was executed between Leighton Contractors and Transurban CityLink Toll Road Limited for toll collection services. The termination was allegedly made without proper cause, and CPB Contractors claimed that it was entitled to compensation for the abrupt cessation of services.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the termination was justified under the terms of the agreement and whether CPB Contractors was entitled to any compensation for the termination. The court had to interpret the contractual terms, specifically focusing on the clauses related to termination and the conditions under which compensation might be payable. The court also had to consider whether there was a breach of any implied terms within the contract.

The court found that the termination was valid and in accordance with the terms of the agreement, which allowed for termination without cause. The termination was deemed lawful as it was not contested on grounds of misconduct or breach of contract. The court held that CPB Contractors was not entitled to compensation as the contract explicitly stated that termination without cause would not result in any financial liability to the terminating party. The reasoning was based on the clear and unambiguous terms of the contract, which provided for such a scenario.

The final orders of the court upheld the termination of the agreement, confirming its validity and dismissing CPB Contractors’ claim for compensation. The court's decision was grounded in the contractual terms and the absence of any breach or wrongful conduct by either party.

CPB Contractors Pty Limited

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established