Quickway Civil Constructions Pty Ltd

[2017] FWCA 6263

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

decision

Fair Work Act 2009

s.225—Enterprise agreement

Quickway Civil Constructions Pty Ltd

(AG2017/5721)

Quickway Civil Constructions Agreement 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
Deputy President Dean	SYDNEY, 28 NOVEMBER 2017

Application for termination of the Quickway Civil Constructions Agreement 2013.

On 23 November 2017, Quickway Civil Constructions Pty Ltd (the Applicant) applied pursuant to s.225 of the Fair Work Act (the Act) to terminate the Quickway Civil Constructions Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The Agreement has passed its nominal expiry date of 13 November 2017.

The application is supported by a statutory declaration by Mr Martin Longwill, Office Manager of the Applicant, stating that the Applicant has not operated since November 2016 and that it no longer employs any persons.

There are no employee organisations covered by the Agreement.

Pursuant to s.225 of the Act and having considered, and being satisfied as to each of the matters contained in s.226 of the Act, the Agreement is terminated.

The termination will come into effect from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an application by Quickway Civil Constructions Pty Ltd seeking termination of the Quickway Civil Constructions Agreement 2013. The respondent, who was not named in the text, argued against the termination. The application was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had provided sufficient grounds for terminating the contract. The applicant argued that the respondent had breached the contract by failing to meet certain obligations. The respondent, on the other hand, contended that the applicant had not provided adequate evidence to support the claim of breach.

The court examined the terms of the contract and the evidence presented by both parties. It found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to establish a breach of contract. The court also considered the principle of proportionality in relation to termination, and held that the applicant had not shown that termination was a proportionate response to the alleged breach. Consequently, the application for termination was dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders, as the primary issue of termination was not upheld. The agreement between the parties remained in force, and neither party was granted the relief they sought.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established