Legal Research
Cases
DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia

DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia

Case [2014] FCA 275 14 March 2014

Jurisdiction

Unconscionable Conduct

Balancing of Interests

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Employment & Labour Law

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FCA 275

Citation: DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FCA 275

Parties: DP WORLD MELBOURNE LIMITED (ABN 52 000 049 301) v THE MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA and MARK ANTHONY JOHNSTON

File number(s): VID 138 of 2014

Judge(s): MIDDLETON J

Date of judgment: 14 March 2014

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Cases cited: Bomanite Pty Ltd v Slatex Corp Aust Pty Ltd (1991) 32 FCR 379
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal and Allied Services Union of Australia v Dee Vee Pty Ltd [2012] FCA 988
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397
Evans v Bartlam [1937] AC 473
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Maritime Union of Australia v DP World Melbourne Ltd [2014] FCA 134
Pearlow v Pearlow (1953) 90 CLR 70
Quinn v Overland (2010) 199 IR 40
Samsung Electronics Co Ltd v Apple Inc [2013] FCAFC 138
Transfield Construction Pty Ltd v Automotive Food, Metal, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union [2002] FCA 1413

Date of hearing: 14 March 2014

Place: Melbourne

Division: GENERAL DIVISION

Category: No catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 54

Counsel for the Applicant: Mr M Wheelahan SC with Mr R Dalton

Solicitor for the Applicant: Seyfarth Shaw Australia

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr H Borenstein SC with Mr S Moore

Solicitor for the Respondents: Maurice Blackburn Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 138 of 2014

BETWEEN:
DP WORLD MELBOURNE LIMITED (ABN 52 000 049 301)
Applicant

AND:
THE MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

MARK ANTHONY JOHNSTON
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE OF ORDER:

14 MARCH 2014

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

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

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 138 of 2014

BETWEEN:
DP WORLD MELBOURNE LIMITED (ABN 52 000 049 301)
Applicant

AND:
THE MARITIME UNION OF AUSTRALIA
First Respondent

MARK ANTHONY JOHNSTON
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

MIDDLETON J

DATE:

14 MARCH 2014

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

On 10 February 2014, the Maritime Union of Australia (‘MUA’) and Mr Johnston, as applicants, brought proceedings seeking relief in relation to the dismissal of Mr Johnston from his employment. They allege, amongst other things, that by dismissing Mr Johnston his employer, DP World Melbourne Limited (‘DP World’), contravened Pt 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (‘the Act’), taking adverse action against Mr Johnston because he was a union delegate and had exercised various workplace rights. The MUA and Mr Johnston sought interim orders requiring DP World to offer normal work duties to Mr Johnston until the hearing and determination of the proceedings or further order.
The import of the evidence in support of the interim orders is summarised in the reasons of the primary judge. Evidence was…

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.

Continue reading DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia

Details

AGLC: DP World Melbourne Limited v Maritime Union of Australia [2014] FCA 275
Case: [2014] FCA 275
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

DP World Melbourne Limited sought leave to appeal an interim order made by Middleton J in Maritime Union of Australia v DP World Melbourne Ltd [2014] FCA 134, which required DP World to offer employment to Mr Johnston until the hearing and determination of the proceedings. The interim order was made to preserve the status quo, pending the hearing and determination of the merits of the case brought by the Maritime Union of Australia and Mr Johnston against DP World. DP World contended that the primary judge's order was unreasonable and plainly unjust and that the primary judge failed to properly balance the competing interests of the parties. The court considered whether the primary judge's discretion had miscarried and whether substantial injustice would result if leave was refused. The court found that the primary judge had considered the competing interests of the parties and the evidence before the Court, and that the interim reinstatement order, with the conditions imposed, was reasonable. The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

In summary, DP World Melbourne Limited sought leave to appeal an interim order that required it to offer employment to Mr Johnston until the hearing and determination of the proceedings. The court found that the primary judge had properly balanced the competing interests of the parties and that the interim reinstatement order, with the conditions imposed, was reasonable. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders