Peter John Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd T/A Broadway Homes
[2021] FWCFB 6043
•5 NOVEMBER 2021
| [2021] FWCFB 6043 |
| FAIR WORK COMMISSION |
DECISION |
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision
Peter John Chambers
v
Broadway Homes Pty Ltd T/A Broadway Homes
(C2021/7415)
VICE PRESIDENT CATANZARITI | SYDNEY, 5 NOVEMBER 2021 |
Appeal against interlocutory decision of Commissioner Williams in email dated 4 November 2021 regarding order for production of documents and request for hearing to be rescheduled - permission to appeal refused.
[1] This decision reproduces in edited form the decision and reasons which were stated on transcript at the conclusion of the hearing conducted in relation to this matter earlier today.
[2] The matter before us is an appeal of an interlocutory decision of Commissioner Williams that he hear a recusal application next Monday. The Appellant submits that he needs further time to prepare for the recusal application which is an application that he has in fact made. It is noteworthy that the substantive hearing of this matter had been listed for hearing next Monday and Tuesday prior to any recusal application being made by the Appellant. The Appellant had unsuccessfully sought an adjournment before Commissioner Williams of the hearings of the substantive matter and thereafter filed the recusal application the subject of this appeal.
[3] A differently constituted Full Bench found in Smith v Reward Interiors Pty Ltd[2021] FWCFB 6031 that appeals against an interlocutory procedural decision of a discretionary nature are to be deprecated and will rarely be the subject of the grant of permission to appeal.
[4] In Galloway v Zhai[2021] FWCFB 5419 it was held that decisions on adjournments and the re-opening of cases are within the discretion of the Commission Member. Members have some latitude as to the decision to be made and the correctness of the decision can only be challenged by showing error in the decision-making process. Appeal benches should rarely interfere with decisions on matters of practice and procedure such as refusals of adjournments.
[5] This appeal falls squarely within the principles enunciated above dealing with interlocutory appeals an no appealable eror has been articulated.
[6] The appeal is dismissed.
[7] The Appellant is not, of course, prevented from lodging an appeal should he be dissatisfied with the substantive recusal decision.
VICE PRESIDENT
Appearances:
Mr P Chambers on his own behalf
Mr N Ebbs for the Respondent
Hearing details:
2021.
Telephone hearing.
5 November.
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
<PR735525>
0
2
0