Ritson v Australian Building and Construction Commissioner

In the Federal Court of Australia, Justice Vasta considered the application by Mr Ritson for judicial review of a decision made by the Australian Building and Construction Commissioner (ABCC). Mr Ritson sought to challenge the lawfulness of the ABCC's decision to issue him with a notice under section 52 of the *Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2013* (Cth) (BCII P Act). This notice required Mr Ritson to attend an interview concerning alleged contraventions of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by his employer, a company named "the Company".

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the ABCC had acted lawfully in issuing the section 52 notice to Mr Ritson. Specifically, the Court was required to determine if the ABCC had a reasonable suspicion that Mr Ritson possessed information relevant to an alleged contravention of the *Fair Work Act 2009* (Cth) by the Company, as required by section 52(1) of the BCII P Act. Mr Ritson contended that the ABCC lacked such a reasonable suspicion, rendering the notice invalid.

Justice Vasta reasoned that the ABCC's power to issue a section 52 notice is predicated on a reasonable suspicion that the person to be interviewed possesses relevant information. The Court examined the material before the ABCC at the time the notice was issued and found that it did not establish a sufficient basis for a reasonable suspicion that Mr Ritson, as an individual employee, would possess information relevant to the alleged contraventions by the Company. The Court concluded that the ABCC had failed to demonstrate that it held a reasonable suspicion that Mr Ritson had relevant information, and therefore, the decision to issue the notice was unlawful.

The Court ordered that the decision of the ABCC to issue the notice under section 52 of the *Building and Construction Industry (Improving Productivity) Act 2013* (Cth) to Mr Ritson be quashed.