Gofton v Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd - [2012] FMCA 64

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA

GOFTON v QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD

[2012] FMCA 64

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Claim alleging dismissal in contravention of a general protection – applicant claims terminated because of claim for supplementary personal leave pursuant to Award and other legitimate workplace activity – respondent claims termination for disciplinary reasons – termination for genuine disciplinary reasons – application dismissed.

Crimes Act 1914, s.4AA
Fair Work Act 2009, ss.340(1), 342, 345(1), 350(1), 351, 351(1), 361, 361(1), 369, 539(1), 539(2), 545, 545(2)(b), 546(1), 546(2)(b), 546(3)(c), 546(5), 547(1)(2), 547(3)
Industrial Relations Act 1999
Workplace Relations Act 1996, s.664
Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd Printing (Murarrie) Award 2000, cl.27

Barclay v The Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education (2011) 191 FCR 212
Hayward v Rohd Four Pty Ltd & Ors [2008] FMCA 1490
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd(No.2) [2010] FCA 399
Liquor Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union v Arnotts Biscuits Limited [2010] FCA 770

Applicant:

RONALD LESLIE GOFTON

Respondent:

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD ACN 009 661 778

File Number:

BRG 424 of 2010

Judgment of:

Jarrett FM

Hearing dates:

4 & 5 October 2010

Date of Last Submission:

5 October 2010

Delivered at:

Brisbane

Delivered on:

7 February 2012

REPRESENTATION

Solicitor for the Applicant:

Mr Tayler

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Workers First Australia Pty Ltd

Solicitor for the Respondent:

Ms Milner

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Milner Lawyers

ORDERS

The application filed on 4 May, 2010 is dismissed.

FEDERAL MAGISTRATES
COURT OF AUSTRALIA
AT BRISBANE

BRG 424 of 2010

RONALD LESLIE GOFTON

Applicant

And

QUEENSLAND NEWSPAPERS PTY LTD ACN 009 661 778

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Until his employment was summarily terminated on 4 February, 2010, Ron Gofton worked as a printing machinist with the respondent, Queensland Newspapers. Mr Gofton claims that the circumstances of his dismissal engage the remedial provisions of the Fair Work Act 2009. Consequently, he brings this application alleging that his dismissal was effected in contravention of a general protection set out in the Act. He claims compensation, reinstatement, the imposition of a pecuniary penalty upon Queensland Newspapers and other relief. Although Mr Gofton’s dismissal is not in dispute, the reasons for his dismissal are.

The uncontroversial background

The following uncontroversial facts appear from the pleadings:
a)Mr Gofton was employed by Queensland Newspapers as a printing machinist from 16 September, 1975 to 4 February, 2010.
b)Mr Gofton’s employment was terminated by Queensland Newspapers on 4 February, 2010.
c)Mr Gofton had a workplace right because Mr Gofton was entitled to the benefit of a workplace instrument, namely the Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd Printing (Murarrie) Award 2000 (“the Award”) and the News Group – AMWU Metropolitan Printing Agreement 2008 (“the Agreement”).
d)The Award contains provisions relating to personal leave, personal injury and sickness and supplementary personal leave.
e)In December, 2009 Mr Gofton attempted to exercise his workplace right in relation to his entitlement to supplementary personal/sick leave.
f)Queensland Newspapers failed to accept that Mr Gofton was entitled to exercise his workplace…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Gofton v Queensland Newspapers 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: [2012] FMCA 64
Decision Date: 7 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The dispute before the court involved an application filed by the plaintiff, Gofton, against the defendant, Queensland Newspapers Pty Ltd. The plaintiff sought an injunction and damages for defamation arising from an article published by the defendant. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether the content published by the defendant constituted defamatory statements against the plaintiff. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the defendant had a valid defence under the principle of fair comment on matters of public interest.

The court began by examining the content of the article and the context in which it was published. The judge considered whether the statements made in the article were capable of bearing a defamatory meaning and whether they referred to the plaintiff. The court further analysed the defence of fair comment, assessing whether the defendant had a legitimate basis for making the statements and whether they were based on facts that were in the public interest. The court also weighed the public interest in freedom of speech against the plaintiff's right to reputation. After a thorough review of the evidence and legal arguments presented, the court concluded that the statements in the article did not constitute defamation. The defence of fair comment was found to be valid, as the statements were made in good faith and were based on matters of public interest.

As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application. The judge ruled that the defendant was not liable for defamation and that the plaintiff's claims were unfounded. The application filed on 4 May, 2010, was dismissed, and no injunction or damages were awarded to the plaintiff. The court's decision emphasised the importance of balancing the right to freedom of speech with the protection of individual reputations, particularly in matters concerning public interest.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application filed on 4 May, 2010 is dismissed.

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.