Hughes v Momentum Wealth Pty Ltd - [2017] FWCFB 759

[2017] FWCFB 759

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Matthew Hughes
v
Momentum Wealth Pty Ltd t/a Momentum Wealth
(C2017/294)

VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS
COMMISSIONER HUNT

SYDNEY, 13 FEBRUARY 2017

Permission to appeal against decision [2016] FWC 9072 of Commissioner Williams at Perth on 29 December 2016 in matter number U2016/8592.

Introduction and background

[1] Mr Matthew Hughes has applied for permission to appeal and appealed a decision of Commissioner Williams issued on 29 December 2016 1 (Decision) in which he dismissed Mr Hughes’ application for an unfair dismissal remedy made pursuant to s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act) in respect of the termination of his employment with Momentum Wealth Pty Ltd (Momentum). Mr Hughes was dismissed by Momentum on 14 July 2016 as a result of his conduct at a work social event on 1 July 2016 and his behaviour in connection with the investigation of that conduct on 4 July 2016. In the Decision, the Commissioner found that Mr Hughes’ dismissal was not unfair, and dismissed his application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[2] The facts of this matter may briefly be stated. Mr Hughes was first employed by Momentum as a Property Strategist in October 2014. It was accepted by Momentum that Mr Hughes performed his work at a high level and was well regarded. However at the time of the 1 July 2016 incident he was the subject of a final warning, issued as a result of a head-butt he had inflicted on a fellow employee at an after-work gathering in November 2014, that any further instances of aggression would result in his dismissal.

[3] The work social event on Friday 1 July 2016 occurred at a hotel. By arrangement between Momentum and the hotel, an area for the function had been roped off and Momentum had paid for food and alcohol to be served to its employees attending the function for a fixed period. In advance of the function, at a meeting of staff (including Mr Hughes) held on 21 June 2016, Momentum advised that employees were expected to behave responsibly at the function as they were representing Momentum.

[4] At the function, at around 11.00pm, Mr Hughes became involved in an altercation with another patron at the hotel who had no connection to the Momentum function. The precise circumstances of the altercation were the subject of dispute, but it ended with the patron lying on the floor and Mr Hughes standing over him with a clenched and raised fist. A fellow Momentum employee, Mr Cliffe, intervened to separate Mr Hughes from the patron and push him away, and another employee, Mr Merrick, physically restrained Mr Hughes. The Managing Director of Momentum, Mr Collins, who was present at the function, then asked Mr Hughes to leave the function. After some arguing, Mr Hughes eventually agreed to do so.

[5] Mr Hughes attended for work as normal the following Monday, 4 July 2016. He…

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 Hughes v Momentum Wealth 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 759
Decision Date: 13 FEBRUARY 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Hughes, sought permission to appeal a decision made by Commissioner Williams of the Fair Work Commission, which was rendered on 29 December 2016 in Perth. The decision pertained to a dispute between Mr. Hughes and his employer, Momentum Wealth Pty Ltd, relating to an unfair dismissal claim. The case was heard in the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission, which was tasked with determining whether the appeal should proceed.

The central legal issues before the Full Bench involved the assessment of the Commissioner's decision to dismiss Mr. Hughes' unfair dismissal claim. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether the Commissioner erred in his interpretation of the relevant employment laws and whether there were any procedural issues that warranted a review of the decision. The applicant argued that the Commissioner had overlooked certain critical evidence and misapplied the law in dismissing his claim.

In delivering the judgment, the Full Bench found that the Commissioner's decision was not in error. The court held that the Commissioner had correctly interpreted the applicable legal principles and had adequately considered the evidence presented. The Full Bench further determined that there were no procedural defects that would warrant a reconsideration of the decision. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The Full Bench's final order was that Mr. Hughes' application for special leave to appeal the decision of the Commissioner was refused. The decision of the Commissioner remained upheld, and no further appeal was permitted.

Orders