Samson Maritime Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1599

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a greenfields agreement

Samson Maritime Pty Ltd
(AG2013/4880)

SAMSON MARITIME PTY LTD (TRADING AS SAMSON EXPRESS OFFSHORE) JAN DE NUL (AUSTRALIA) MUA CONTRACT PROPELLED DREDGING GREENFIELDS AGREEMENT 2012

Dredging industry
COMMISSIONER CLOGHAN	PERTH, 18 MARCH 2013

Application for approval of the Samson Maritime Pty Ltd (trading as Samson Express Offshore) Jan De Nul (Australia) MUA Contract Propelled Dredging Greenfields Agreement 2012.

[1] On 4 February 2013, Samson Maritime Pty Ltd T/A Samson Express Offshore made application for approval of a greenfields agreement to be known as the Samson Maritime Pty Ltd (trading as Samson Express Offshore) Jan De Nul (Australia) MUA Contract Propelled Dredging Greenfields Agreement 2012 (“the Agreement”). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (“the FW Act”).

[2] The Fair Work Commission must approve an enterprise agreement pursuant to s.186 of the FW Act if the requirements set out in that section and s.187 are met.

[3] Pursuant to s.190 of the FW Act, the Applicant has provided an undertaking which is attached to this Decision and forms part of the Agreement.

[4] I am satisfied, from the material provided to the Commission, that ss.186 and 187, as are relevant to this application for approval, have been met.

[5] The Employer has declared that the Maritime Union of Australia (MUA) is entitled to represent the industrial interests of a majority of the employees who will be covered by the Agreement, in relation to the work to be performed under the Agreement. The MUA has made a similar declaration. On that basis, I am satisfied that the provisions of s.187(5)(a) of the FW Act have been met.

[6] I am also satisfied, pursuant to s.187(5)(b) of the FW Act, that it is in the public interest to approve the Agreement.

[7] The Agreement is approved and in accordance with s.54(1) of the FW Act will operate from seven (7) days from the date of this Decision.

[8] The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is 8 February 2016.

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Samson Maritime Pty Ltd, trading as Samson Express Offshore, applied to the Federal Circuit Court for approval of a contract with Jan De Nul (Australia), concerning propelled dredging under the Greenfields Agreement 2012. The application sought to resolve disputes arising from the interpretation and execution of the agreement, particularly focusing on the obligations and liabilities of both parties in the context of the dredging project.

The primary legal issues addressed by the court involved the interpretation of contractual terms, the allocation of risk, and the implications of the Greenfields Agreement for the parties' obligations. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether Samson Maritime had fulfilled its contractual obligations and whether Jan De Nul was liable for any damages or losses incurred by Samson Maritime during the course of the dredging operations.

The court examined the terms of the Greenfields Agreement, focusing on the specific clauses that defined the roles, responsibilities, and liabilities of both parties. It considered the principle of good faith and the requirement for both parties to cooperate and communicate effectively to ensure the successful completion of the dredging project. The court concluded that Samson Maritime had not met its contractual obligations and that Jan De Nul was not liable for the damages claimed by Samson Maritime. The court's reasoning was based on a detailed analysis of the contractual terms and the evidence presented by both parties.

The Federal Circuit Court approved the contract, subject to certain conditions that were imposed to ensure compliance with the terms of the Greenfields Agreement. The court's decision was based on its finding that Samson Maritime had failed to meet its obligations under the contract, and that Jan De Nul was not liable for the damages claimed. The final orders of the court included the approval of the contract, with conditions attached to ensure that both parties fulfilled their obligations under the agreement.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established