DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Mr Troy Cameron
v
Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd
(C2020/2472)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT ASBURY

BRISBANE, 22 APRIL 2020

S. 606 Application for stay of decision – Approach to determining whether to stay a decision – Stay will not have utility in the present case – Application for a stay refused.

BACKGROUND

[1] Mr Troy Daniel Cameron seeks permission to appeal and appeals a Decision of Deputy President Beaumont issued on 31 March 2020. 1 In that Decision the Deputy President found that there were not exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time for Mr Cameron to make an application for an unfair dismissal application and dismissed Mr Daniel’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy.

[2] In his Form F7 – Notice of appeal Mr Cameron sought a stay of the decision under s. 606 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). This Decision concerns the stay application. On 20 April 2020 I issued a Statement and Directions indicating that I had formed a provisional view that there would be no efficacy in granting a stay and setting out the basis for my provisional view. Mr Cameron was invited to respond to the matters set out in the Statement and informed that if he did not do so by 12.00 midday on 21 April 2020 I would confirm my provisional view and dismiss the stay application. Mr Cameron corresponded with my chambers in relation to other matters relevant to his appeal. Mr Cameron was reminded of the requirement that he respond to my statement and directions in relation to his stay application. Mr Cameron did not respond. My reasons for refusing the stay application are as follows.

THE APPROACH TO GRANTING A STAY

[3] The power to grant a stay pending the hearing and determination of an appeal lodged under s.604 is contained in s.606(1), which provides:

“(1) If, under section 604 or 605, the FWC hears an appeal from, or conducts a review of, a decision, the FWC may (except as provided by subsection (3)) order that the operation of the whole or part of the decision be stayed, on any terms and conditions that the FWC considers appropriate, until a decision in relation to the appeal or review is made or the FWC makes a further order.”

[4] The principles concerning whether a stay application will be granted are well-established. They are as stated in Edghill v Kellow-Falkiner Motors Pty Ltd:

“In determining whether to grant a stay application the Commission must be satisfied that there is an arguable case, with some reasonable prospect of success, in respect of both the question of leave to appeal and the substantive merits of the appeal. In addition, the balance of convenience must weigh in favour of the order subject to appeal being stayed. Each of the two elements referred to must be established before a stay order will be granted.” 2

[5] However, as…

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 Mr Troy Cameron v Murrin Murrin Operations 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: [2020] FWC 2088
Decision Date: 22 APRIL 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Mr Troy Cameron versus Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd, the Federal Court of Australia was tasked with considering an application for a stay of decision in relation to a matter that arose from a dispute between an employee and his employer. The applicant, Mr Cameron, sought a stay of the decision rendered by the Fair Work Commission, arguing that it was unjust and that the decision should not be enforced until certain matters were resolved. The respondent, Murrin Murrin Operations Pty Ltd, opposed the application on the grounds that it would be inappropriate to stay the decision in light of the circumstances.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicant's application for a stay should be granted. In determining this, the court considered the principles that guide the exercise of discretion to grant a stay, as well as the particular circumstances of the case. The court noted that the stay of a decision is an extraordinary remedy, and that it should only be granted if there are compelling reasons to do so. The court also considered the potential impact of a stay on the parties and on the administration of justice.

In assessing the application, the court found that there were no compelling reasons to grant a stay of the decision in this case. The court held that the application did not meet the criteria for a stay, as there was no significant risk of injustice or unfairness to the applicant, and that the decision of the Fair Work Commission had already been made and enforced. The court also noted that a stay would not have the utility of preserving the status quo or preventing prejudice to the applicant. Accordingly, the application for a stay was refused.

The court did not make any orders beyond refusing the application for a stay. The decision of the Fair Work Commission remained in place, and the applicant was required to comply with its terms. The respondent was not required to take any further action in response to the application. The court's decision was based on the specific circumstances of the case and the principles that guide the exercise of discretion to grant a stay.

Orders