Lee v Fair Work Commission - [2020] FCA 733

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Lee v Fair Work Commission [2020] FCA 733

Review of: Mr Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd T/A Superior Wood [2018] FWC 4762

Appeal from: Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2019] FWCFB 2946

File numbers: QUD 356 of 2019
QUD 385 of 2019

Judge: REEVES J

Date of judgment: 6 February 2020

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to quash a decision of the full bench of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) – whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the proceedings to continue – application dismissed

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for judicial review of a decision of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) – whether it is in the interests of justice to allow the proceedings to continue – application dismissed

Legislation:
Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)

Cases cited:
Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd [2019] FWCFB 2946

Mr Jeremy Lee v Superior Wood Pty Ltd T/A Superior Wood [2018] FWC 4762

Date of hearing: 6 February 2020

Registry: Queensland

Division: General Division

National Practice Area:

QUD 356 of 2019 Employment & Industrial Relations

QUD 385 of 2019 Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights

Category: Catchwords

Number of paragraphs: 4

QUD 356 of 2019

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the First to Fourth Respondents: Ms J Lye of Australian Government Solicitor

QUD 385 of 2019

Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person

Solicitor for the First and Second Respondents: Ms J Lye of Australian Government Solicitor

ORDERS

QUD 356 of 2019

BETWEEN:
JEREMY LEE

Applicant

AND:
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

First Respondent

DEPUTY PRESIDENT SAMS
Second Respondent

COMMISSIONER MCKINNON
Third Respondent

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:

REEVES J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating application filed in QUD 356 on 2019 on 1 June 2019 is dismissed.
2.There be no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
ORDERS

QUD 385 of 2019

BETWEEN:
JEREMY LEE

Applicant

AND:
FAIR WORK COMMISSION

First Respondent

COMMISSIONER JENNIFER HUNT
Second Respondent

JUDGE:

REEVES J

DATE OF ORDER:

6 FEBRUARY 2020

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The originating application filed in QUD 385 of 2019 on 13 June 2019 is dismissed.
2.There be no order as to costs.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

EX TEMPORE REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
REEVES J:

Mr Jeremy Lee has filed two proceedings in this Court. Proceeding QUD 385 of 2019 sought judicial review of the decision of Fair Work Commissioner Hunt made on 1 November 2018. Commissioner Hunt’s decision dismissed Mr Lee’s unfair dismissal application ([2018] FWC 4762). The other proceeding, QUD 356 of 2019, sought relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act

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 Lee v Fair Work Commission

Details

AGLC: Lee v Fair Work Commission [2020] FCA 733
Case: [2020] FCA 733
Decision Date: 6 February 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the applicant, Mr Lee, sought to challenge a decision made by the full bench of the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) through an application under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth). The core of the dispute revolved around whether it was in the interests of justice to permit the proceedings to continue given the specific circumstances of the case. The application aimed to quash the Commission's decision, which had significant implications for Mr Lee's employment rights.

The legal issues at hand primarily concerned the criteria for judicial review and the discretionary power of the court to determine if allowing the proceedings to continue would serve the interests of justice. The court had to consider whether the Commission's decision was so flawed that it warranted judicial intervention. Additionally, the court examined if there were any exceptional circumstances that would justify the application proceeding despite the general rules governing judicial review.

The court meticulously analysed the merits of the case and the potential impact on Mr Lee. It considered the principle that judicial review should not be used as a substitute for appeal and that the interests of justice must be balanced against the finality of administrative decisions. The court found that the Commission's decision, while debatable, did not meet the stringent threshold for judicial intervention. Consequently, the court concluded that it was not in the interests of justice to allow the application to proceed. The application was dismissed, affirming the finality and integrity of the Commission's decision-making process.

Orders