Dooley and Secretary, Department of Employment and Workplace Relations

This matter concerned an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia regarding a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) concerning Mr Dooley's redundancy entitlement under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act 2012 (Cth). The dispute centred on whether a "Grand Chapel agreement" constituted a "governing instrument" for the purposes of calculating Mr Dooley's redundancy pay, particularly for the period of his employment prior to redeployment to Warwick Farm.

The legal issues before the Federal Court included whether the AAT had erred in finding that the Grand Chapel agreement was a governing instrument for Mr Dooley's redundancy entitlement, and whether the AAT had adequately articulated the findings necessary to support such a conclusion. Specifically, the court was required to consider the AAT's reasoning regarding the incorporation of the Grand Chapel agreement into Mr Dooley's contract of employment, and whether the elements of a valid contract, such as offer, acceptance, consideration, and intention to create legal relations, had been properly identified and applied.

The Federal Court, per Rares J., set aside the AAT's decision. His Honour found that the AAT had failed to articulate the specific findings required to support its conclusion that the Grand Chapel agreement was a governing instrument under the Fair Entitlements Guarantee Act. While acknowledging that evidence might have supported the company's obligation to honour the agreement, the court criticised the AAT for not undertaking an analysis of the essential elements of contract formation. The AAT had instead relied on a broader definition of "governing instrument" in the Act, which included agreements "whether a contract or not," without sufficiently demonstrating how this applied in the circumstances.

Consequently, the Federal Court issued an order in the nature of mandamus, requiring the AAT to hear and determine the Respondent's application for review according to law. The matter was remitted back to the AAT for redetermination.