Jess v Cooloola Milk Pty Ltd

The appeal in Jess v Cooloola Milk Pty Ltd concerned the dismissal of the appellant from his employment by the second respondent. The appellant claimed that he was underpaid during his employment, that the respondents had taken adverse action against him, and that the respondents had made false and misleading representations to him about his employment and entitlements. The respondents denied the claims and the case was heard in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia, where the primary judge dismissed the appellant's application. The appellant appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues in the appeal were whether the primary judge erred in not providing procedural fairness to the appellant, whether the primary judge erred in concluding that the appellant was a casual employee, and whether the primary judge erred in finding that section 15A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) did not apply. The appellant argued that the primary judge failed to consider material evidence and arguments that, if accepted, could have led to a different conclusion on the reasons for his dismissal. The respondents argued that the primary judge's findings were correct and that the appeal should be dismissed.

The Federal Court of Australia held that the appeal should be allowed and the decision of the primary judge set aside. The Court found that the primary judge had failed to consider the appellant's submissions concerning the matters set out at para 23(e)–(i) of the appellant's written submissions, which concerned the credibility of the second respondent's evidence regarding the reasons for the dismissal. The Court held that the compelling inference that arose from those facts alone was that the complaint was of great concern to the second respondent and a substantial and operative reason for the dismissal. The Court also held that the primary judge had erred in concluding that the appellant was a casual employee and that section 15A of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) did not apply. The Court found that the matter should be remitted to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) for hearing and determination.