Legal Research
Cases
Hutton v Sykes Australia Pty Ltd

Hutton v Sykes Australia Pty Ltd

Link copied

Case Copied 22 May 2014 4 min read

Contents

On this page

[2014] FWCFB 3384

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

B. Hutton
v
Sykes Australia Pty Ltd
(C2014/4402)

JUSTICE ROSS, PRESIDENT
VICE PRESIDENT HATCHER
COMMISSIONER RIORDAN

MELBOURNE, 22 MAY 2014

Appeal against directions issued by Deputy President Asbury on 8 May 2014 in matter number U2014/4464 - s.604(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) - permission to appeal refused.

[1] Mr Brett Hutton has applied for permission to appeal, and appeals, against directions (the Directions) of Deputy President Asbury issued on 8 May 2014. Mr Hutton has applied for an expedited hearing of the appeal. The Directions which are the subject of the appeal concern the hearing and determination of Mr Hutton’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act) in relation to the termination of his employment by Sykes Australia Pty Ltd (the respondent). The Directions are as follows:

“[1]Further to the Directions Conference held on 6 May 2014, the following Further Directions are made:

Applicant's Material

[2] The Applicant is to confirm in writing to the Commission and to the Respondent, by 12.00 Midday on Tuesday 13 May 2014, whether the bundle of documents appended to these Directions constitutes all of the submissions, witness statements and documents upon which he proposes to rely at the hearing of his application.

[3]The Applicant is to provide to the Commission and to the Respondent by 12.00 Midday on Wednesday 14 May 2014,a hard copy of any document upon which he proposes to rely, which is not contained in the bundle of documents appended to these Directions.

[4] The Commission will not receive documents tendered by the Applicant in the hearing of this application other than:

(a) documents contained in the bundle appended to these Directions; or

(b) documents provided in hard copy form in accordance with these Directions.

Respondent's Material

[5]The date by which the Respondent is to file and serve its submissions and witness statements is extended to 12.00 Midday on Friday 16 May 2014.

Further Mention

[6] The matter is listed for further Directions Conference, by telephone on Tuesday 20 May 2013 at 4.00 pm.”

[2] Mr Hutton’s appeal concerns an interlocutory procedural matter. His primary concern is that the respondent was granted an extension of time within which to file its material in reply, from 6 May to 16 May 2014. The remedy he seeks is an order retracting the Directions and as a consequence the respondent would not be able to rely on the material it has filed in the substantive hearing. We note that the substantive hearing is to take place on 17 June 2014.

[3] The fact that this appeal challenges an interlocutory or procedural decision is relevant to the determination of permission to appeal. Courts and tribunals have generally discouraged appeals from preliminary or procedural rulings. 1 Permitting appeals against interlocutory or procedural rulings may prolong the proceedings overall and increase the costs to the parties. There are…

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 Hutton v Sykes Australia 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: [2014] FWCFB 3384
Decision Date: 22 MAY 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr. Hutton, sought to appeal directions issued by the Deputy President Asbury in the Fair Work Commission on 8 May 2014. The directions were issued in the context of a matter concerning workplace relations and were governed by section 604(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The respondent in the case was Sykes Australia Pty Ltd. The primary issue before the court was whether the appeal against the directions was warranted and, if so, whether the appellant should be granted permission to proceed with it.

The court considered the grounds upon which Mr. Hutton sought to appeal the directions. The Deputy President had ruled on procedural matters, and Mr. Hutton argued that these rulings were flawed. However, the court found that the appeal did not present a sufficiently strong case for special leave to be granted. The court assessed the potential merits of the appeal and concluded that they were not compelling enough to justify setting aside the original decision. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and permission to appeal was refused.

In dismissing the appeal, the court highlighted that the decision to grant or refuse permission to appeal is discretionary and rests on whether the appeal has a real prospect of success. Here, the court found that the appeal did not meet this threshold. The Deputy President's directions were well within the scope of their authority under the Fair Work Act, and the arguments presented by Mr. Hutton did not sufficiently challenge the correctness of these directions. Consequently, the appeal was not allowed to proceed.

The final order of the court was that Mr. Hutton's application for special leave to appeal the directions issued by the Deputy President was refused. The directions remained in place, and the case would proceed in accordance with those directions.

Orders