Ferrington v Qube Ports Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 31 min read

Civil and Administrative Tribunal


New South Wales

  • Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: Ferrington v Qube Ports Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCATAD 101
Hearing dates: 3 April 2025
Date of orders: 06 May 2025
Decision date: 06 May 2025
Jurisdiction:Administrative and Equal Opportunity Division
Before: J Smith, Senior Member
Decision:

(1) Pursuant to ss 102 and 92(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), the Tribunal dismisses the whole of the Applicant’s complaint.

(2) If either party seeks costs of the proceedings, they are to notify the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this decision. Further directions will then be made by the Tribunal, if costs are sought.

Catchwords:

JURISDICTION – disability discrimination – termination of employment - enterprise agreement - whether dispute is a matter that involves federal jurisdiction – dismissal

Legislation Cited:

Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW)

Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)

Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)

Cases Cited:

Australian Postal Corporation v Williams [2024] NSWCATAP 168

BDK v Department of Education and Communities [2015] NSWCATAP 129

Blanch v Smith [2024] NSWCATAD 20

Burns v Corbett [2018] HCA 15

Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn [2022] HCA 16

Felton v Mulligan [1971] HCA 39; 124 CLR 367

Gaynor v Burns [2025] NSWSC 185

Hammond v Ozzy’s Cheapest Cars Pty Ltd t/as Ozzy Car Sales [2015] NSWCATAP 65

Moorgate Tobacco Co Ltd v Philip Morris Ltd [1980] HCA 32

Murphy v Trustees of Catholic Aged Care Sydney [2018] NSWCATAP 275

R v Commonwealth of Conciliation and Arbitration: Ex parte Barrett [1945] HCA 50; 70 CLR 141

Rana v Google Inc [2017] FCAFC 156

Re Luck [2003] HCA 70

Spicers v Owners Corporation [2016] NSWCATAP 11

Tucker v McKee [2022] FCAFC 98

Wilson v Chan & Naylor Parramatta Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 213

Texts Cited:

None cited

Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Mark Ferrington (Applicant)
Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
D Ward (Respondent)

Solicitors:
Maritime Union of Australia (Applicant)
Allens (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2024/00238310
Publication restriction: Nil

REASONS fOR DECISION

  1. The Respondent, Qube Ports Pty Ltd (Qube) is seeking that the Tribunal dismiss the Applicant, Mark Ferrington’s disability discrimination complaint (the complaint) on the basis that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction as the matter involves federal jurisdiction. The Tribunal has decided to dismiss the complaint on this basis.

Background

  1. Mr Ferrington commenced employment with Qube as a Stevedore on 1 August 2007.

  2. In January 2020, Mr Ferrington suffered a work-related back injury and lodged a successful workers compensation claim.

  3. In late 2021, Mr Ferrington returned to work with Qube on light duties.

  4. On 17 March 2023, Mr Ferrington’s employment as a Stevedore was terminated by Qube on the ground that Mr Ferrington had an injury that prevented him from performing the inherent requirements of his position.

  5. Prior to his termination, Mr Ferrington’s employment with Qube was governed by the Qube Ports Pty Ltd Port of Kembla Enterprise Agreement 2021 (the…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ferrington v Qube Ports 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
[2025] NSWCATAD 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Ferrington, brought a complaint against Qube Ports Pty Ltd, alleging disability discrimination and wrongful termination of employment. The matter was heard by the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of New South Wales. The applicant claimed that his dismissal was due to his disability, contrary to the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), and that his employer did not follow the terms of the relevant enterprise agreement.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's complaint involved a matter that fell under federal jurisdiction. The Tribunal had to determine if the dispute was about disability discrimination and the termination of employment, and if it was covered by the federal anti-discrimination laws. Another key issue was whether the applicant's dismissal was justified under the terms of the enterprise agreement.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's complaint did not involve a matter that required federal jurisdiction. The Tribunal ruled that the applicant failed to establish that his dismissal was due to his disability or that the employer did not adhere to the enterprise agreement. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's complaint did not meet the necessary legal criteria for federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the whole of the applicant’s complaint. If either party seeks costs of the proceedings, they are to notify the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this decision. Further directions will then be made by the Tribunal if costs are sought.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Pursuant to ss 102 and 92(1)(b) of the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), the Tribunal dismisses the whole of the Applicant’s complaint.

(2) If either party seeks costs of the proceedings, they are to notify the Tribunal within 21 days of the date of this decision. Further directions will then be made by the Tribunal, if costs are sought.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.