Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd

Case [2025] FedCFamC2G 832

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

(DIVISION 2)

Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 832

File number: MLG 1157 of 2023
Judgment of: JUDGE CHAMPION
Date of judgment: 4 June 2025
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Jurisdiction – Whether the Applicant had standing to seek a declaration of a contravention of the whistleblowers protections in Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001 – Whether the court has original jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 to decide claims under the whistleblower protections of Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act– Alternatively, whether the court has jurisdiction as to the whistleblower protection claims under s. 134 of the FCFCOA Act because those matters are associated with matters in which the jurisdiction of the court is invoked – Held the applicant did not have standing to bring an application for a declaration – Held that the court did not have original jurisdiction as to the whistleblower protection claims – Held because the court did not have original jurisdiction the court did not have jurisdiction to grant a declaration under s. 141 of the FCFCOA Act – Held that the court had associated jurisdiction to grant other remedies as to the whistleblower protection claims
Legislation:

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s. 15C

Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss. 58AA, 1317AC, 1317D, 1317AE, 1317J, 1337A, 1337B, 1337C, 1337E

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) cc. 342, 545, 566

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth) ss. 131, 134, 141

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss. 21, 32

Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) s. 39B

Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (General Federal Law) Rules 2021 r. 18.03
Cases cited:

Donnola v Silverleaf Constructions Co Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FedCFamC2G 577

Harris v Caladine (1991) 172 CLR 84

In the matter of Douglas Webber Events Pty Ltd (ACN 160 966 914) (2014) 291 FLR 173; [2014] NSWSC 1544

Macteldir v Dimovski (2005) 226 ALR 774; [2005] FCA 1528

Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd. [2025] FCA 101

Ogawa v Federal Magistrate Phipps (2006) 151 FCR 311; [2006] FCA 361

QYFM v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 419

Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511

Shergold v Tanner (2002) 209 CLR 126; [2002] HCA 19

Leeming J, Authority to Decide, The Law of Jurisdiction in Australia (Federation Press, 2nd edition, 2020)
Division: Division 2 General Federal Law
Number of paragraphs: 65
Date of hearing: 28 April 2025
Place: Melbourne
Counsel for the Applicant: Mr Tracey KC and Ms Driscoll
Solicitor for the Applicant: Holdstock Law
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr Garozzo
Solicitor for the Respondent: MST Lawyers

ORDERS

MLG 1157 of 2023

FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA (DIVISION 2)
BETWEEN:

JASON MACMARTIN

Applicant
AND:

BUNNINGS GROUP LTD (ACN 008 672 179)

Respondent

ORDER MADE BY:

JUDGE CHAMPION

DATE OF ORDER:

4 JUNE 2025

THE…

Continue reading Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd [2025] FedCFamC2G 832
Case
[2025] FedCFamC2G 832
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Macmartin v Bunnings Group Ltd involved a dispute where Mr. Macmartin, the applicant, sought to bring claims against Bunnings Group Ltd, the respondent, for alleged contraventions of whistleblower protections under Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act 2001. The case was heard and determined by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether it had the jurisdiction to entertain and decide these whistleblower claims. The court was also required to address whether Mr. Macmartin had standing to seek a declaration of contravention of these protections.

The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with jurisdictional matters. Specifically, the court had to decide if it had original jurisdiction under s. 131 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 to decide claims under the whistleblower protections of Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act. Alternatively, the court had to determine if it had jurisdiction over these claims under s. 134 of the FCFCOA Act because they were associated with matters for which the court's jurisdiction was already invoked. Additionally, the court considered whether Mr. Macmartin had the standing to seek a declaration that Bunnings had contravened the whistleblower protections.

The court concluded that Mr. Macmartin did not have standing to bring the application for a declaration of contravention. It further held that the court did not have original jurisdiction to decide claims under the whistleblower protections as the Corporations Act did not vest such jurisdiction in the court by express provision or by implication. Given that the court lacked original jurisdiction, it did not have the power to grant a declaration under s. 141 of the FCFCOA Act. However, the court did have associated jurisdiction to grant other remedies related to the whistleblower protection claims, as these were associated with other matters over which the court already had jurisdiction.

In summary, the court found that it did not have the necessary jurisdiction to declare a contravention of the whistleblower protections, but it retained the ability to consider and grant other appropriate remedies in relation to these claims, given their association with other justiciable matters already within its purview.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The questions (amended as agreed) and my answers to them are as follows:(1)Question: Does the Applicant have standing to bring a proceeding for a declaration that the Respondent has contravened s. 1317AC(1) of the Corporations Act 2001?Answer: No(2)Question: If separate question 3 is answered in the affirmative, does this court have the power to make a declaration of contravention of s. 1317AC(1) of the Corporations Act under s. 141 of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia Act 2021 (Cth)?Answer: Does not arise because question 3 is answered no.(3)Question: Does this court have jurisdiction to decide claims whether the Respondent or employees have engaged in detrimental conduct so as to enliven the power in s. 1317AD(1) to make orders for compensation or make orders for other remedies under s. 1317AE(1) of the Corporations Act under the Corporations Act in its original jurisdiction?Answer: No(4)Question: Does this court have jurisdiction to decide claims whether the Respondent or its employees have engaged in detrimental conduct so as to enliven the power in s. 1317AD(1) or s. 1317AD(2A) to make orders for compensation or other remedies under s. 1317AE(1) of the Corporations Act under s. 134 of the FCFCOA Act in its associated jurisdiction?Answer: Yes NECESSARY BACKGROUND The matters which the court will need to decide at trial include the following. Mr Macmartin alleges that in contravention of s. 342 of the FW Act, Bunnings took adverse action against him (among other matters) by dismissing him from his employment. He seeks compensation under s. 545 of the FW Act (among other remedies) (FASOC, Prayer for Relief, D). Under s. 566 of the FW Act this court has jurisdiction “in relation to any civil matter arising” under the FW Act. There is no jurisdictional issue as to Mr Macmartin’s FW Act claims. Mr Macmartin also alleges that by his dismissal (and the way in which it was effected) Bunnings breached his employment contract (FASOC, 62B–62D). There is no contest that the court has jurisdiction to deal with the Applicant’s contract claims because those matters arise out of a common substratum of facts and form part of a single justiciable controversy together with his FW Act claims (see, i.e., Re Wakim; Ex parte McNally (1999) 198 CLR 511, [140]). These reasons concern a different issue as to the court’s jurisdiction as to Mr Macmartin’s claims that Bunnings has contravened certain whistleblower protections set out in Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act (FASOC, 59B–62AE). THE PARTIES’ POSITIONS Mr Macmartin submits that this court has “original jurisdiction” under s. 131 of the FCFCOA Act as to his whistleblower protections claims under Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act. Alternatively, Mr Macmartin submits that this court has “associated jurisdiction” under s. 134 of the FCFCOA Act as to his whistleblower protection claims. Bunnings disputes that the court has original jurisdiction. Bunnings submits, however, that the court has associated jurisdiction as to the whistleblower protection claims

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Section 141(1) of the FCFCOA Act is as follows:141 Declarations of right(1) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) may, in relation to a matter in which it has original jurisdiction, make binding declarations of right, whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed. Under s. 141(1) this court may only make a declaration of right “in relation to a matter in which it has original jurisdiction”. It follows that if this court has original jurisdiction under the Corporations Act as to Mr Macmartin’s whistleblower claims s. 141 of the FCFCOA Act may serve as an independent source of power, independent from s. 1317J, to make a declaration of contravention of s. 1317AC(1). In Mount v Dover Castle Metals Pty Ltd. [2025] FCA 101 (at [165]–[168]) Katzmann J held s. 1317J was not the “exclusive source of power available to the court to make a declaration of contravention of a civil penalty provision” and the Federal Court could rely on s. 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) as its source of power to make a declaration of a contravention of s. 1317AC(1). For the reasons set out below, this court is in a different position from the Federal Court because it is not vested with jurisdiction under the Corporations Act.Does this court have original jurisdiction as to the Part 9.4AAA claim?The FCFCOA Act Chapter 4, Part 2 of the FCFCOA Act is titled: “Jurisdiction”. Division 1 is titled “original jurisdiction”. Within Division 1, s. 131(1) is as follows:131 Original jurisdiction – general (1) The Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) has such original jurisdiction as is vested in it: (a) by laws made by the Parliament: (i) by express provision; or(ii) by the application of section 15C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 to a provision that, whether expressly or by implication, authorises a civil proceeding to be instituted in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in relation to a matter;… In broad terms, under s. 131(1)(a) the jurisdiction of this court depends on an Act of the Commonwealth parliament — by substantive legislation — vesting jurisdiction in it. Section 566 of the FW Act furnishes an example of the vesting of jurisdiction in this Court “by express provision” in the following terms:Jurisdiction is conferred on the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) in relation to any civil matter arising under this Act. The Corporations Act does not vest jurisdiction in this court “by express provision” by a provision of the kind set out in s. 566 of the FW Act. As to jurisdiction being vested “by the application of section 15C of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901” (AI Act) under s. 131(1)(a)(ii), s. 15C(a) of the AI Act is as follows:Where a provision of an Act, whether expressly or by implication, authorises a civil or criminal proceeding to be instituted in a particular court in relation to a matter:(a)that provision shall be deemed to vest that court with jurisdiction in that matter;