Legal Research
Cases
Jackson v P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd

Jackson v P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd

Case [2015] FCCA 1014 1 May 2015

Type to search within this case.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

JACKSON v P/T CONSTRUCTIONS WA PTY LTD

[2015] FCCA 1014

Catchwords:
INDUSTRIAL LAW – General protections claim – interlocutory application for summary dismissal of substantive application – adverse action – workplace right – workers compensation claim – whether person a partner in a business – whether person an employee – whether compensation for loss suffered because of a contravention.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Interlocutory application for summary dismissal of substantive application – explanation of no reasonable prospect of success – whether no reasonable prospect of success – whether frivolous, vexatious or abuse of process.

PARTNERSHIP – Whether person a partner or employee.

REMEDIES – Whether compensation for loss suffered because of a contravention.

WORDS AND PHRASES – “no reasonable prospect of success” – “compensation for loss suffered because of a contravention” – “myriad”.

Legislation:

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), Part 3-1, ss.12, 323, 340(1), 341, 342, 352, 360, 390, 392, 545(1) and (2), 548, 570

Fair Work Bill 2008 (Cth), Explanatory Memorandum
Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), reg.3.01
Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), r.13.10
Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.14, 17A, 18
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), s.31A
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), r.26.01
Partnership Act 1895 (WA), ss.4, 7, 8
Workers Compensation and Injury Management Act 1981 (WA), ss.18, 19

Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd [2004] HCA 28; (2004) 217 CLR 424; (2004) 78 ALJR 907; (2004) 206 ALR 387
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia v Wollongong Coal Limited [2014] FCA 878
Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v International Aviation Service Assistance Pty Ltd [2011] FCA 333; (2011) 193 FCR 526; (2011) 205 IR 392
Australian Securities & Investments Commission v Cassimatis [2013] FCA 641; (2013) 220 FCR 256; (2013) 302 ALR 671; (2013) 94 ACSR 623

Bailey v Krantz (1984) 55 ALR 345

Beck & Anor v Spalla & Anor [2005] FCAFC 82; (2005) 142 FCR 555
Board of Bendigo Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay [2012] HCA 32; (2012) 248 CLR 500; (2012) 86 ALJR 1044

Cai v Tiy Loy & Co Ltd [2015] FCCA 715
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41; (2014) 88 ALJR 980; (2014) 314 ALR 1
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Pilbara Iron Company (Services) Pty Ltd (No. 3) [2012] FCA 697
Cowell v Quilter Goodison Co Ltd & Anor [1989] IRLR 392
Dafallah v Fair Work Commission & Anor [2014] FCA 328; (2014) 225 FCR 559; (2014) 242 IR 273
Damevski v Giudice & Ors [2003] FCAFC 252; (2003) 133 FCR 438
Dandaven v Harbeth Holdings Pty Ltd [2008] FCA 955

Dorotea Pty Ltd v Vancleve Pty Ltd (1987) 75 ALR 629

Elna Australia Pty Ltd v International Computers (Aust) Pty Ltd (No.2) (1987) 16 FCR 410

Fair Work Ombudsman v Skilled Offshore…

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.

Continue reading Jackson v P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd

Details

AGLC: Jackson v P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd [2015] FCCA 1014
Case: [2015] FCCA 1014
Decision Date: 1 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Judge Lucev, considered an interlocutory application for summary dismissal of a general protections claim brought by Mr Jackson against P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd. The dispute concerned allegations of adverse action taken against Mr Jackson, who claimed to have a workplace right by virtue of having made a workers' compensation claim. A central factual issue was whether Mr Jackson was an employee of P/T Constructions WA Pty Ltd or a partner in the business.

The court was required to determine whether Mr Jackson's application had no reasonable prospect of success, and if so, whether it should be summarily dismissed as frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of process. The court also had to consider the nature of the remedy sought, specifically compensation for loss suffered because of a contravention of the adverse action provisions.

In reaching its decision, the court analysed the evidence presented regarding the alleged partnership and employment relationship. It applied the legal principles governing summary dismissal, which require a high threshold to be met before a claim can be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The court considered the meaning of "compensation for loss suffered because of a contravention" and the potential for a "myriad" of claims.

The court found that there was a real question to be tried regarding Mr Jackson's status as an employee or partner, and therefore, the application for summary dismissal was dismissed.

Orders