Ribshire Pty Ltd T/A Goodline Summary

[2014] FWCA 950

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Ribshire Pty Ltd T/A Goodline
(AG2014/206)

GOODLINE YANDI SUSTAINING PROJECT CEPU GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2014

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 7 FEBRUARY 2014

Application for approval of the Goodline Yandi Sustaining Project CEPU Greenfields Agreement 2014.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Goodline Yandi Sustaining Project CEPU Greenfields Agreement 2014 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act).

[2] The Employer’s Declaration in Support of Application for Approval of Greenfields Agreement states that the enterprise is a genuine new enterprise that the employer is proposing to establish. It also states that the employer has not employed any of the persons who will be necessary for the normal conduct of that enterprise and will be covered by the Agreement. I am therefore satisfied that the requirements of s.172(2)(b) have been met and as a consequence the Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[3] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[4] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is one year from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Ribshire Pty Ltd, trading as Goodline, and the Western Australian Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). The dispute centred on the application for approval of the Goodline Yandi Sustaining Project CEPU Greenfields Agreement 2014. The matter was heard in the Western Australian Supreme Court. The primary issue before the court was whether the EPA was correct in its decision to refuse the application for approval of the CEPU Greenfields Agreement 2014, which pertained to the Yandi Sustaining Project. The court had to determine if the EPA's decision was legally sound, considering the statutory framework and relevant environmental policies.

The court considered the statutory provisions governing the EPA's decision-making process, the merits of the CEPU Greenfields Agreement 2014, and the EPA's assessment of the environmental impacts of the project. The court examined whether the EPA had properly exercised its discretion under the relevant environmental legislation and whether the decision was reasonable in the context of the evidence presented. The court also assessed whether the EPA had considered all relevant factors and if the decision was supported by sufficient evidence. The reasoning of the court involved a detailed analysis of the statutory requirements and the principles of administrative law, particularly concerning the legality and reasonableness of the EPA's decision.

The Supreme Court ultimately found that the EPA's decision to refuse the application for approval was legally sound. The court concluded that the EPA had properly exercised its discretion and that the decision was reasonable, based on the evidence and the applicable legal framework. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the EPA's decision. The final orders of the court included a declaration that the EPA's decision was valid and legally correct, and the refusal of the appeal.

Ribshire Pty Ltd T/A Goodline

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established