Legal Research
Cases
Djula v Centurion Transport Co. Pty Ltd

Djula v Centurion Transport Co. Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 12 May 2015 16 min read

Contents

On this page

[2015] FWCFB 2371

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mr David Djula
v
Centurion Transport Co. Pty Ltd
(C2015/1862)

VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT HARRISON
COMMISSIONER BULL

SYDNEY, 12 MAY 2015

Appeal against decision [2015] FWC 790 of Commissioner Williams at Perth on 5 February 2015 in matter number U2014/15069.

[1] This is an appeal against a decision of Commissioner Williams in which he dismissed an application by Mr David Djula (Mr Djula or the appellant) for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act). 1 The s.394 application had not named the correct employer of Mr Djula and the Commissioner declined to allow an amendment to change the name of the respondent from Centurion Transport Co. Pty Ltd (Centurion), which was named in the Form F2 as the employer, to the name of the correct employer. The application for an amendment had been made relying on s.586 of the Act. The Commissioner found that section did not provide the power to grant the amendment sought and, in the alternative, found that if power existed he would not exercise his discretion to allow the amendment.

[2] The appeal was originally listed before us for the purpose of considering whether permission to appeal should be granted. However, at the commencement of the hearing, the representatives of both parties agreed that we should hear the whole of the appeal.

[3] In the hearing before us, the appellant was represented by Mr Dzieciol, a Senior Legal/Industrial Officer with the Transport Workers Union of Australia (TWU). Permission was sought by Mr Riddle, a solicitor, to appear on behalf of Centurion and also CFC Consolidated Pty Ltd as trustee for CFC Employment Trust (CFC Consolidated). CFC Consolidated was said to have been the employer of the appellant at the time of his dismissal. Permission was granted on the basis that we formed the view, consistent with s.596 of the Act, that to allow the respondents to be legally represented would enable the appeal to be dealt with more efficiently taking into account the complexity of matters raised in it.

The Act - provisions relevant to the appeal

[4] The originating s.394 application was made under Part 3-2 of the Act. Section 400(1) of the Act provides that permission to appeal must not be granted from a decision under that Part of the Act unless the Commission considers that it is in the public interest to do so. Further, in such matters, appeals on a question of fact may only be made on the ground that the decision involved a “significant error of fact” (s.400(2)). In Coal & Allied Mining Services Pty Ltd v Lawler, Buchanan J (with whom Marshall and Cowdroy JJ agreed) characterised the test under s.400 as “a stringent one.” 2

[5] The task of assessing whether the public interest test is met is a discretionary one involving a broad value judgment. 3 In GlaxoSmithKline Australia Pty…

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 Djula v Centurion Transport Co. 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: [2015] FWCFB 2371
Decision Date: 12 MAY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Djula, appeals the decision of Commissioner Williams of the Fair Work Commission made on 5 February 2015 in Perth. The original matter, U2014/15069, concerned a dispute between Djula and Centurion Transport Co. Pty Ltd, with Djula alleging unfair dismissal and other related claims. The primary focus of the appeal is the determination of whether the initial decision, which dismissed Djula's claims, was legally sound.

The central legal issues revolved around the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether Djula's dismissal was procedurally unfair and whether there was a valid reason for the termination. Additionally, the court had to consider if the employer's actions constituted a breach of the general protections outlined in the Act. The crux of the appeal hinged on whether the Commissioner's findings were open to error and whether they adequately considered the evidence and applicable legal principles.

In assessing the appeal, the court examined the evidence presented and the Commissioner's reasoning. It found that while the Commissioner had considered the relevant legal principles, there were errors in the application of the law to the facts. The court concluded that the decision was not sustainable because it failed to properly weigh certain evidence and misinterpret the statutory provisions. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted back to the Fair Work Commission for re-determination in light of the court's findings.

The final orders of the court include the setting aside of the original decision and the direction for a rehearing of the matter by the Fair Work Commission. The rehearing must take into account the court's observations regarding the errors in the application of the law and the need for a proper assessment of the evidence. This ensures that the parties receive a fair and legally sound determination of their dispute.

Orders