Legal Research
Cases
Hambridge v Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd

Hambridge v Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 7 July 2017 24 min read

Contents

On this page

[2017] FWCFB 2811

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Liam Hambridge
v
Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd
(C2017/2438)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT DEAN
COMMISSIONER WILSON

SYDNEY, 7 JULY 2017

Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 2148 of Deputy President Kovacic at Canberra on 18 April 2017 in matter number U2017/1338.

Introduction and factual background

[1] Mr Liam Hambridge has applied for permission to appeal and appealed a decision 1 of Deputy President Kovacic issued on 18 April 2017 (Decision). The effect of the Decision was to refuse Mr Hambridge an extension of the time to lodge an application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) and to dismiss the application that had been received by the Fair Work Commission (Commission). An order2 dismissing the application was also issued by the Deputy President on the same day (Order).

[2] At the hearing before us on 30 May 2017 Mr Hambridge was self-represented, and the respondent, Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd (Spotless) was represented by Ms Katherine Aistrope of the Australian Industry Group.

[3] Section 394(2) of the FW Act requires an unfair dismissal remedy application to be lodged within 21 days after the dismissal took effect or within such further period as the Commission allows under s.394(3). Section 394(3) provides:

(3) The FWC may allow a further period for the application to be made by a person under subsection (1) if the FWC is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances, taking into account:

(a) the reason for the delay; and

(b) whether the person first became aware of the dismissal after it had taken effect; and

(d) prejudice to the employer (including prejudice caused by the delay); and

(e) the merits of the application; and

(f) fairness as between the person and other persons in a similar position.

[4] Mr Hambridge’s employment was terminated by Spotless with effect on 25 November 2016. On 9 December 2016 Mr Hambridge lodged an application with the Commission (first application). The first application was sent as an attachment to an email sent by Mr Hambridge which was headed “Unfair Dismissal Claim Application” and said “Please see attached F8 application for unfair dismissal lodged by Liam Hambridge against Spotless Pty Ltd. Please advise if further information is required for lodging of this form or if other documentation is required for this application to be lodged”. The attached first application was not on the prescribed form for an unfair dismissal remedy application (Form F2), but rather used the form for a general protections application involving a dismissal (Form F8). Form F8 consists of a series of questions or requests for information to which the applicant must respond. Mr Hambridge filled out the form as required. In response to the request in the form to “Describe the actions of the Respondent that have led you to make this…

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 Hambridge v Spotless Facilities Services 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: [2017] FWCFB 2811
Decision Date: 7 JULY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Hambridge v Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd, the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission heard an appeal against a decision made by Deputy President Kovacic. The initial case arose from a dispute between the applicant, Hambridge, and the respondent, Spotless Facilities Services Pty Ltd, regarding the applicant's unfair dismissal and subsequent reinstatement. The case was initially heard and decided in the Federal Circuit Court at Canberra on 18 April 2017, with the matter number U2017/1338.

The legal issues before the Full Bench centred on whether the initial decision correctly applied the principles of unfair dismissal and whether the subsequent orders for reinstatement were appropriate. The primary focus was on whether the Deputy President's findings regarding the applicant's dismissal and the employer's justification were consistent with the applicable legislation and case law. Additionally, the Full Bench examined whether the orders for reinstatement were adequately supported by the evidence and whether they complied with the statutory provisions governing such remedies.

In delivering the judgment, the Full Bench carefully reviewed the evidence and arguments presented in the appeal. The Full Bench found that the Deputy President's decision was not in error and that the principles applied were consistent with the Fair Work Act and relevant jurisprudence. The Full Bench also affirmed that the orders for reinstatement were supported by the evidence and appropriate under the circumstances. The Full Bench thus upheld the original decision, dismissing the appeal.

The Full Bench's final orders were to affirm the decision of Deputy President Kovacic, maintaining the findings of unfair dismissal and the orders for reinstatement. The appeal was dismissed, and no further orders were made.

Orders