| [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
<Price code A, AE405323 PR598112>
- AGLC
- Quickway Civil Constructions Pty Ltd [2017] FWCA 6263
- Case
- [2017] FWCA 6263
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.