Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley & Ors - [2025] HCATrans 15

[2025] HCATrans 015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S119 of 2024

B e t w e e n -
HELENSBURGH COAL PTY LTD
Appellant
and
NEIL BARTLEY AND OTHERS NAMED IN THE SCHEDULE
Respondents

GAGELER CJ
GORDON J
EDELMAN J
STEWARD J
BEECH‑JONES J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA AND BY VIDEO CONNECTION

ON THURSDAY, 6 MARCH 2025, AT 10.00 AM

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friends MR A.M. POMERENKE, KC and MR P.M. ZIELINSKI for the appellant. (instructed by MinterEllison)

MR J.T. GLEESON, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with MR P.A. BONCARDO for the first to twenty‑second respondents. (instructed by Mining and Energy Union)

MR GLEESON: There is a submitting appearance for the twenty‑third respondent.

GAGELER CJ: Yes. Thank you, Mr Gleeson. The transcript should record that Justice Edelman is participating in the hearing remotely. Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: May it please the Court. Your Honours, having seen the record – the formal record, in this case – your Honours will appreciate the jarring nature of an object of the relevant Part of the Fair Work Act, namely, Part 3‑2, which in subsection 381(1) stipulates as an object of the Part to produce, in subparagraph (b)(i):

quick, flexible and informal –

procedures for dealing with unfair dismissal cases. The emphasis in this case, so far as we are concerned and the interpretation that we urge as decisive, is upon the implications of requiring procedures dealing with unfair dismissal to be quick and informal.

Against that background, as your Honours appreciate, this is an appeal from the refusal of the Full Court to detect the argued jurisdictional error by the Full Bench in its own appeal by way of rehearing under the statute from the Commission. That nested set of arguments, framed differently, obviously, the statutory appeal by way of rehearing to the Full Bench, then the constitutional writs sought against the Full Bench in the Full Court, all turns upon the consequences of the threshold issue for an unfair dismissal claim which is set up under the following provisions.

Can I take your Honours, please, in the book of authorities, volume 1 in Part A, page 53 of the print, starting with section 385 which defines or explains what it means to say that a person has been unfairly dismissed as being the state of affairs upon which the Commission:

is satisfied that:

(a)the person has been dismissed; and
(b)the dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable; and
(c)the dismissal was not consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and –

all of these are required – and, (d), the one at the heart of our argument:

(d)the dismissal was not a case of genuine redundancy.

We can pass over section 386 not because it is not important – it plainly is – but because it does not have any…

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 Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd v Bartley & Ors 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: [2025] HCATrans 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia considered an appeal from the Supreme Court of New South Wales concerning a dispute between Helensburgh Coal Pty Ltd and a group of former employees, represented by Mr Bartley. The core of the dispute involved claims for unpaid wages and entitlements arising from the termination of employment.

The High Court was required to determine whether the former employees were entitled to recover unpaid wages and other entitlements from Helensburgh Coal under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and relevant state legislation, notwithstanding the company's insolvency and the appointment of liquidators. A key issue was the application of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) in relation to employee entitlements during insolvency.

The Court reasoned that the claims for unpaid wages and entitlements were not extinguished by the company's insolvency. It applied the principle that statutory entitlements to wages and other employee benefits are a fundamental aspect of employment law and are intended to be protected even in circumstances of corporate insolvency. The Court affirmed that the Corporations Act, while providing a framework for the orderly winding up of companies, does not operate to nullify or diminish these statutory rights. The Court considered the interplay between the Fair Work Act and the Corporations Act, concluding that the former's provisions for employee entitlements take precedence in this context.

The High Court allowed the appeal, finding in favour of the former employees and remitting the matter to the Supreme Court of New South Wales for further proceedings consistent with the High Court's judgment.

Orders