Flageul v WeDrive Pty Ltd

Mr Flageul appeals against the dismissal of his proceeding against WeDrive Pty Ltd and others, seeking pecuniary penalties under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and damages pursuant to the Fair Work Act, the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the Australian Consumer Law. Mr Flageul claimed adverse action, breach of s 358 of the FW Act, oppression and unconscionable conduct by the respondents. The primary judge dismissed all of Mr Flageul’s claims. The central issue for the court was whether the primary judge erred in dismissing Mr Flageul’s claims under ss 340 and 358 of the FW Act and under s 232 of the Corporations Act. The court considered whether the findings of fact made by the primary judge were not glaringly improbable and whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the claims.

The court found that the findings of fact were not glaringly improbable and therefore should not be disturbed on appeal. The court held that the primary judge did not err in dismissing the claims. The court found that Mr Flageul had not established that he was dismissed because of the exercise of any workplace right, which was a necessary element for a claim under s 340 of the FW Act. The court also held that Mr Flageul’s claim under s 358 of the FW Act failed because he did not establish that the respondents engaged in conduct that was oppressive, discriminatory or in breach of a provision of the FW Act. The court found that the primary judge did not err in dismissing the claim under s 232 of the Corporations Act, which required Mr Flageul to establish that the respondents engaged in oppressive or unfair conduct.

The appeal is dismissed. There is to be no order for costs.