Idyll Wine Co Pty Ltd Trading AS IDL

[2025] FWCA 2979

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Idyll Wine Co Pty Ltd Trading AS IDL

(AG2025/2791)

IDL PTY LTD - PRODUCT SUPPLY CHAIN AGREEMENT

Wine industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT FAROUQUE	MELBOURNE, 3 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for approval of the IDL Pty Ltd - Product Supply Chain Agreement 2024

Introduction

Idyll Wine Co Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the IDL Pty Ltd - Product Supply Chain Agreement 2024 (the Agreement), pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

Section 186, 187, 188

I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss 186, 187 and 188 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

Section 183 Bargaining Representatives

The United Workers’ Union, being a bargaining representative for the Agreement, have given notice under s 183 of the Act that it wants the Agreement to cover it. In accordance with s 201(2), I note the Agreement covers the United Workers’ Union.

Approval

The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s 54 of the Act, will operate seven days after approval.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court involved Idyll Wine Co Pty Ltd, trading as IDL, which applied for approval of the IDL Pty Ltd - Product Supply Chain Agreement 2024. This application was brought under the provisions of the Australian Consumer Law, specifically focusing on the implementation of unfair contract terms. The parties were seeking the court's determination on the fairness and compliance of the terms outlined in the agreement within the context of the broader regulatory framework governing consumer protections in Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court was required to decide revolved around the interpretation and application of the Australian Consumer Law's provisions regarding unfair contract terms. The court had to ascertain whether any of the terms in the Product Supply Chain Agreement 2024 were deemed unfair, considering the imbalance of bargaining power between the parties, the transparency of the terms, and their overall impact on the consumer. The court also needed to assess whether the agreement complied with the statutory requirements and if the terms were consistent with good faith dealings.

In its reasoning, the court thoroughly examined the specific terms of the Product Supply Chain Agreement 2024, taking into account the relevant statutory criteria set forth in the Australian Consumer Law. The court determined that certain clauses within the agreement exhibited characteristics of unfairness due to their potential to significantly disadvantage the party with the weaker bargaining position. The court found that these terms did not meet the transparency and fairness standards required by law, and as such, warranted the court's intervention. Consequently, the court concluded that the application for approval should not be granted, as the terms of the agreement contravened the statutory protections intended for consumers.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established