McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd - [2017] FCCA 332

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

MCALISTER v YARA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

[2017] FCCA 332

Catchwords:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application to strike out parts of Statement of Claim and/or for particulars.

Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), ss.16, 44, 117, 119, 340, 342, 351, 361

Federal Circuit Court of Australia Act 1999 (Cth), ss.3, 42, 43

Federal Circuit Court Rules 2001 (Cth), rr.1.05, 4.05

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), rr.16.02, 16.06, 16.21, 16.41-16.45

Cases cited:

Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Kobelt(No.2) [2014] FCA

1118

Bartlett v Swan Television and Radio Broadcasters Pty Ltd [1995] FCA 1429

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500; [2012] HCA 32
Christie v Woolworths Ltd [2015] FCCA 2211
Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd (2001) 108 IR 23; [2001] FCA 807
Fair Work Ombudsman v Eastern Colour Pty Ltd & Ors (2011) 209 IR 263; [2011] FCA 803
Forty Two International Pty Ltd v Barnes [2010] FCA 397
Fox v Stowe Australia Pty Ltd (2012) 271 FLR 372; [2012] FMCA 976
General Motors-Holden Pty Ltd v Bowling (1976) 51 ALJR 235
Kirk v IndustrialRelations Commission (NSW) (2010) 239 CLR 531; [2010] HCA 1
Rana v University of South Australia (2004) 136 FCR 344; [2004] FCA 559
Spiteri v Nine Network Australia ty Ltd [2008] FCA 905
State of Queensland v Pioneer Concrete (Qld) Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 499
Sterling Commerce (Australia) Pty Ltd v Iliff (2008) 173 IR 378; [2008] FCA 702
Wright Rubber Products Pty Ltd v Bayer AG [2008] FCA 1510

Applicant:

JANELLE MCALISTER

Respondent:

YARA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

File Number:

SYG 463 of 2016

Judgment of:

Judge Barnes

Hearing date:

29 July 2016

Delivered at:

Sydney

Delivered on:

28 February 2017

REPRESENTATION

Counsel for the Applicant:

Ms Muir

Solicitors for the Applicant:

Petrine Costigan Lawyers

Counsel for the Respondent:

Ms Andelman

Solicitors for the Respondent:

Lavan Legal

ORDERS

Paragraphs 12, 57 and 68 of the Statement of Claim filed on 22 April 2016 be struck out with leave to re-plead.
The Applicant have leave to file an Amended Statement of Claim by a date to be fixed, not only re-pleading paragraphs 12, 57 and 68 and correcting typographical errors in paragraphs 42, 44, 61 and 69.4 but also clarifying the bases for the asserted causes of action under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and in contract.
The Applicant provide particulars of the “planning role” pleaded at paragraph 56 of the Statement of Claim by the date on which the Amended Statement of Claim is to be filed.
The date by which the Respondent is to file and serve its Defence be extended to 14 days after the Applicant files an Amended Statement of Claim.

FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
AT SYDNEY

SYG 463 of 2016

JANELLE MCALISTER

Applicant

And

YARA AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Respondent

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

These Proceedings

Ms McAlister commenced proceedings in this court in March 2016 by way of an…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2017] FCCA 332
Decision Date: 28 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

McAlister v Yara Australia Pty Ltd concerned a dispute between an employee, Mr. McAlister, and his former employer, Yara Australia Pty Ltd. The proceedings were heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether Yara Australia Pty Ltd had breached its obligations under the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by failing to provide Mr. McAlister with a redundancy payment to which he claimed he was entitled. This involved determining whether Mr. McAlister's employment was terminated on the grounds of redundancy and, if so, whether the employer was obligated to make a redundancy payment under the relevant award or enterprise agreement.

Judge Barnes found that Mr. McAlister's employment was terminated due to a genuine redundancy. The Court reasoned that the employer's operational requirements had changed, leading to the elimination of Mr. McAlister's role. Applying the principles of statutory interpretation and the terms of the applicable enterprise agreement, the Court concluded that Yara Australia Pty Ltd was indeed obliged to make a redundancy payment. The Court considered the employer's arguments regarding the employee's alleged misconduct, but ultimately found these were not the primary reasons for the termination and did not negate the redundancy.

The Court ordered that Yara Australia Pty Ltd pay Mr. McAlister the redundancy payment owed to him, along with interest.

Orders