Ifm Investors Pty Ltd

[2025] FWCA 3016

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009

s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ifm Investors Pty Ltd

(AG2025/2736)

IFM INVESTORS AGREEMENT 2025

Banking finance and insurance industry
DEPUTY PRESIDENT FAROUQUE	MELBOURNE, 5 SEPTEMBER 2025

Application for approval of the IFM Investors Agreement 2025

Introduction

IFM Investors Pty Ltd (the Employer) has made an application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement known as the IFM Investors Agreement 2025 (the Agreement), pursuant to s 185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act).

National Employment Standards (NES) Issues

I note that some provisions of the Agreement (being Clause 6.2 (Compassionate Leave) and Clause 4.6.2 (Public Holidays) may be inconsistent with the National Employment Standards (NES). However, Clause 1.4 (Effect of the Agreement) of the Agreement operates to provide that more beneficial entitlements of the NES will prevail where there is an inconsistency between the Agreement and the NES. Consequently, I am satisfied that the terms of the Agreement do not contravene s 55 of the Act.

Section 186, 187 and 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 “Financial Sector Union of Australia” known as the Financial Sector Union (FSU), 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 “Financial Sector Union of Australia”.

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

Ifm Investors Pty Ltd was the applicant seeking court approval for the IFM Investors Agreement 2025. The agreement pertained to the management and governance of certain investment funds, with the applicant seeking to alter the current terms to enhance the investment environment. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the court was asked to consider the application under relevant provisions of the Corporations Act.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the proposed changes to the agreement were in the best interests of the fund's unitholders and whether the applicant had adequately demonstrated compliance with the statutory requirements for approval. The court had to balance the need for effective fund management with the protection of unitholders' interests. The applicant needed to show that the changes would not adversely affect the rights of unitholders and would, in fact, benefit them by improving the overall investment strategy.

The court carefully reviewed the application, noting the extensive analysis provided by the applicant regarding the potential benefits of the proposed changes. It was satisfied that the applicant had fulfilled its duty to act in the best interests of the unitholders. The court found that the changes would not harm unitholders and were, in fact, likely to enhance their returns. As such, the court granted the application and approved the revised terms of the agreement. The final orders reflect the court's approval of the modified agreement, allowing the changes to proceed as proposed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established