Resmed Ltd v AMWU

Case [2015] FCAFC 106

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

ResMed Limited v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union
[2015] FCAFC 106 

Citation: ResMed Limited v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FCAFC 106
Parties: RESMED LIMITED v "AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION" KNOWN AS THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION (AMWU) and FAIR WORK COMMISSION
File number: NSD 822 of 2015
Judges: JESSUP, BUCHANAN AND WIGNEY JJ
Date of judgment: 12 August 2015
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Apprehended bias – Procedural fairness –Whether predetermination of issues prior to hearing and decision had taken place – Apprehension of losing the case as distinct to apprehended bias

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Commission – Consistency of decisions – Expression of opinion on a legal issue in an earlier related case does not constitute grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), s 236
Fair Work (Registered Organisations) Act 2009 (Cth), ss 137A(1)(b), 158
Cases cited: “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v ResMed Limited [2013] FWC 9725
“Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) v ResMed Limited [2014] FWCFB 3501
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (2011) 242 CLR 283
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Helljay Investments Pty Ltd v Deputy Commissioner of Taxation (Cth) (1999) 74 ALJR 68; 166 ALR 302
Kirby v Centro Properties Ltd (No 2) (2011) 202 FCR 439
R v Burrell (2007) 175 A Crim R 21
Re Cram; Ex parte Newcastle Wallsend Coal Co Pty Ltd (1987) 163 CLR 140
Re Finance Sector Union of Australia; Ex parte Illaton Pty Ltd (1992) 66 ALJR 583; 107 ALR 581
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
ResMed Limited v “Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union” known as the Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (AMWU) [2015] FWC 4007
ResMed Ltd v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union [2015] FCA 615
ResMed Limited v Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union (No 2) [2015] FCA 537
ResMed Limited v Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union (AMWU) [2015] FWC 848
Sengupta v Holmes [2002] EWCA Civ 1104; [2002] TLR 351
Teys Australia Beenleigh Pty Ltd v Australasian Meat Industry Employees Union [2015] FCAFC 105
Date of hearing: 5 August 2015
Place: Sydney
Division: FAIR WORK DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 45
Counsel for the Applicant: R C Kenzie QC with Y Shariff
Solicitor for the Applicant: Ashurst Australia
Counsel for the First Respondent: M Gibian
Solicitor for the First Respondent: Australian Manufacturing Workers’ Union
Counsel for the Second Respondent: The second respondent filed a submitting notice

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

FAIR WORK DIVISION

NSD 822 of 2015
BETWEEN:

RESMED LIMITED
Applicant
AND:

"AUTOMOTIVE, FOOD, METALS, ENGINEERING, PRINTING AND KINDRED INDUSTRIES UNION" KNOWN AS THE AUSTRALIAN MANUFACTURING WORKERS' UNION (AMWU)
First Respondent

FAIR WORK COMMISSION
Second Respondent

JUDGES:

JESSUP, BUCHANAN…

Continue reading Resmed Ltd v AMWU

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
ResMed Limited v Australian Manufacturing Workers' Union [2015] FCAFC 106
Case
[2015] FCAFC 106
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Resmed Ltd v AMWU involved the applicant, Resmed Ltd, challenging the fairness of a decision made by the Fair Work Commission (FWC). The dispute centred on whether there had been a predetermination of issues and whether this created an apprehension of bias against the decision-makers. The matter was brought before the Full Bench of the Federal Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the mere expression of an opinion on a legal issue in an earlier related case constituted grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the apprehension of losing the case was distinguishable from the apprehension of bias, and if the FWC's decisions were consistent and procedurally fair.

The court found that the mere expression of an opinion on a legal issue in a related case did not constitute grounds for a reasonable apprehension of bias. It was held that the apprehension of losing the case was not the same as apprehended bias, and the decision-makers did not predetermine the issues before the hearing and decision. The court also found that the FWC's decisions were consistent and procedurally fair. Consequently, the application was dismissed.

The final orders made by the court were that the application be dismissed. This decision was in accordance with Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, which governs the entry of orders in such proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.