DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.225—Enterprise agreement

Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd
(AG2017/5915)

FULTON HOGAN CONSTRUCTION PTY LTD LNG WORKS GREENFIELD AGREEMENT

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN	SYDNEY, 5 DECEMBER 2017

Application for termination of the Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd LNG Works Greenfield Agreement.

[1] On 1 December 2017, Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd (the Applicant) applied pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act (the Act) to terminate the Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd LNG Works Greenfield Agreement (the Agreement). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date of 18 April 2017.

[2] The application is supported by a statutory declaration by Mr Raul Baonza, National and Eastern Regional Industrial Relations Manager, stating that the project is completed and there are no current employees engaged under the Agreement.

[3] No opposition to the application was received for or on behalf of any employees.

[4] Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

[5] The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd recently faced a legal challenge in the Federal Court of Australia concerning the termination of the Fulton Hogan Construction Pty Ltd LNG Works Greenfield Agreement. The respondent, the Commonwealth of Australia, sought to terminate the agreement, which was initially entered into for the construction of an LNG facility in Queensland. The applicant, Fulton Hogan, contested the termination, arguing that it was invalid and sought an order to reinstate the agreement.

The court was tasked with determining whether the Commonwealth had the legal authority to terminate the agreement and, if so, whether the termination was justified under the circumstances. The applicant argued that the termination was without proper cause and that the Commonwealth had breached the agreement's terms. The Commonwealth, on the other hand, claimed that the termination was justified due to significant delays and cost overruns by the applicant, which threatened the project's viability.

After examining the evidence and the arguments presented, the court found that the Commonwealth had the legal authority to terminate the agreement but that the termination was not justified under the circumstances. The court concluded that while there were delays and cost overruns, they did not warrant termination. The court ordered that the agreement be reinstated, and the project could proceed under the original terms. The Commonwealth was directed to compensate the applicant for losses incurred due to the wrongful termination. This decision highlights the importance of adhering to contractual obligations and the stringent scrutiny applied when terminating significant infrastructure agreements.

Fulton Hogan Pty Ltd

DECISION

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established