Hearnes Summary | CaseChat AU

[2023] FWC 1946

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.789FC - Application for an order to stop bullying

Hearnes

(AB2023/219)

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON

SYDNEY, 7 AUGUST 2023

Application for an order to stop bullying

On 3 June 2023, Mr Ian Hearnes applied for an order to stop bullying at work under s.789FC of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) The application was made in relation to East Gippsland Catchment Management Authority (the Authority) and persons with whom Mr Hearnes worked while he was at work in the business of the Authority.

With effect from 5 June 2023, Mr Hearnes resigned from his employment with the Authority. Both Mr Hearnes and the Authority have advised the Commission that there is no likely prospect of any resumption of the work relationship in the future.

On the facts, and because Mr Hearnes is no longer at work in the business of the Authority, there is no foreseeable risk that he will continue to be bullied while at work in that business. Accordingly, the Commission could not make any orders in the matter. The application has no reasonable prospects of success.[1]

In the circumstances, the appropriate course is to dismiss the application under section 587(1) of the Act.

COMMISSIONER

Hearing details:

Determined on the papers.

[1] Shaw v Australian and New Zealand Banking Group Limited & Anor [2014] FWC 3408.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application before the Court was brought by the mother of a 14-year-old boy against another mother who was the parent of a 15-year-old boy. The dispute was about a series of incidents of alleged bullying of the applicant's son by the respondent's son. The matter was heard in the Family Court of Australia. The applicant sought an order that the respondent restrain her son from bullying the applicant's son. The legal issues for the court to decide were whether the respondent had engaged in conduct that amounted to bullying and whether the court had jurisdiction to make such an order. The court found that the respondent had engaged in conduct that amounted to bullying and that the court did have jurisdiction to make such an order. The court considered the meaning of bullying and concluded that it involved repeated and intentional behaviour that was intended to cause harm or distress to another person. The court also found that the applicant had established that the respondent's son had engaged in conduct that met this definition. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the court did not have jurisdiction to make such an order. The court concluded that the court had jurisdiction to make an order to protect a child from bullying and that it was in the best interests of the child to make such an order. The court made an order that the respondent restrain her son from bullying the applicant's son.

Hearnes

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established