Santosheema Pty Ltd T/A Cardiac Care Centre v Marianne Alexander

[2015] FWCFB 6944

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Santosheema Pty Ltd T/A Cardiac Care Centre
v
Marianne Alexander
(C2015/5756)

VICE PRESIDENT WATSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK
COMMISSIONER ROE

MELBOURNE, 9 OCTOBER 2015

Appeal against decision [[2015] FWC 2544] of Deputy President Gooley at Melbourne on 13 April 2015 in matter number U2014/16217 – Permission to appeal – Whether grounds of appeal attract public interest – Permission to appeal not granted – Fair Work Act 2009 – ss. 394, 400 and 604.

[1] This decision is an edited version of a decision given in transcript at the conclusion of the hearing on 30 September 2015. It concerns an application for permission to appeal against a decision of Deputy President Gooley of 13 April 2015 in relation to Marianne Alexander’s unfair dismissal application.

[2] We have considered the matters that have been raised by Ms Brahmbhatt in her oral submissions and in writing filed with the Commission and we have decided to deny permission to appeal in this matter. The decision of Deputy President Gooley related to a procedural issue as to whether the application could proceed and whether a further opportunity to file material should be allowed. That was clearly a procedural issue and it involved the discretion of the Deputy President dealing with the logistics of the unfair dismissal matter.

[3] It appears to us that the matters that have been raised in the appeal are very similar to matters that were raised before the Deputy President. We make no comment about any of the merits of that matter. We simply say that Deputy President Gooley made a procedural ruling which appears to us to be unexceptional. We are not persuaded there is any error in the exercise of the Deputy President’s discretion or that it is in the public interest to grant permission to appeal. We therefore dismiss that application. The consequence of our decision is that the unfair dismissal matter will proceed.

VICE PRESIDENT

Appearances:

Ms S. Brahmbhatt for Santosheema Pty Ltd T/A Cardiac Care Centre.

Ms M. Alexander on her own behalf.

Hearing details:

2015.

Melbourne – by Telephone Link to Sydney.

30 September.

Final written submissions:

Santosheema Pty Ltd T/A Cardiac Care Centre on 28 September 2015.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Santosheema Pty Ltd, trading as Cardiac Care Centre, sought to appeal a decision made by Deputy President Gooley in the Fair Work Commission. The dispute arose from an unfair dismissal claim made by Marianne Alexander against her former employer, Santosheema Pty Ltd. The case was heard and decided by Deputy President Gooley on 13 April 2015 in Melbourne. The central issue was whether the appeal grounds presented a matter of public interest sufficient to warrant permission to appeal.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically sections 394, 400, and 604. These sections relate to the criteria for granting permission to appeal decisions of the Fair Work Commission and the public interest considerations that may influence such a decision. The court was required to determine if the grounds of appeal met the threshold for public interest and if permission to appeal should be granted accordingly.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the grounds of appeal and assessed whether they involved a matter of public interest that warranted intervention. The court noted that the appeal did not present a novel or significant issue that would justify a departure from the usual practice of granting permission to appeal only in exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the court concluded that the grounds of appeal did not attract a public interest sufficient to warrant permission to appeal. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original decision of Deputy President Gooley was upheld.

No further orders were made as the primary decision remained in place. The court's reasoning focused on the need to maintain the integrity and efficiency of the appeal process, ensuring that only cases with a clear public interest component were allowed to proceed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established