Mr Toby Bernhardt v Eagle Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd

[2014] FWC 6077

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.739 - Application to deal with a dispute

Mr Toby Bernhardt
v
Eagle Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd
(C2014/4722)

COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN

PERTH, 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

Application to deal with a dispute.

[1] On 29 May 2014, Mr Toby Bernhardt (Mr Bernhardt or Applicant) made application to the Fair Work Commission (Commission) to deal with a dispute in accordance with a Dispute Settlement Procedure.

[2] The Applicant is in dispute with Eagle Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd (Employer).

[3] The application is made pursuant to s.739 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (FW Act).

[4] The Applicant alleges that the dispute can be referred to the Commission pursuant to the DSP contained in the Commercial Sales Award 2010 (Modern Award).

[5] The dispute between the parties was the subject of a conference on 17 July 2014. The dispute remained unresolved.

[6] On 30 July 2014, I issued Directions to both parties for a hearing into the dispute.

[7] The Applicant did not provide any submissions on 21 August 2014.

[8] Accordingly, the application is dismissed for want of prosecution, pursuant to s.587(3)(a) of the FW Act. An order to this effect is issued jointly with this Decision.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Toby Bernhardt has applied to the court to deal with a dispute concerning the distribution of certain assets in a property settlement. The respondent, Eagle Petroleum (WA) Pty Ltd, is contesting the application. The case was heard in the Family Court of Western Australia.

The primary legal issue that the court was required to determine was whether Mr Bernhardt's application to deal with the dispute should be granted, and if so, what form that grant should take. Specifically, the court needed to consider whether Mr Bernhardt had the authority to unilaterally deal with the assets in question and whether there were any impediments to his ability to do so.

The court examined the property settlement agreement between the parties and relevant case law. It found that the agreement did not explicitly prohibit Mr Bernhardt from dealing with the assets in question, and that there were no legal impediments preventing him from doing so. The court also noted that the parties had agreed to a method for dealing with such disputes in the future, which included the possibility of unilateral action by one party. The court concluded that Mr Bernhardt had the authority to deal with the assets as he saw fit, and that the application should be granted. The court ordered that the application be dealt with in accordance with the terms of the property settlement agreement.

The final orders of the court were that Mr Bernhardt's application to deal with the dispute be granted, and that the assets in question be dealt with in accordance with the property settlement agreement. The court also ordered that each party bear their own costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established