Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 20 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 167

Citation: Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd
[2014] FCAFC 167
Appeal from: Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6)
[2014] FCA 271
Shea v Energy Australia Services Pty Ltd (No 7)
[2014] FCA 1091
Parties: KATE SHEA v ENERGYAUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD
File number: VID 214 of 2014
Judges: RARES, FLICK & JAGOT JJ
Date of judgment: 8 December 2014
Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – workplace rights – right to make a complaint – need for the complaint to be a genuine complaint

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – alleged failure to consider the entirety of the evidence – adverse inference from witnesses not called

Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 3, 336, 340, 341, 342, 361, 570
Cases cited: Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, applied
Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Hellicar [2012] HCA 17, (2012) 247 CLR 345, cited
Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (No 1) [2012] HCA 32, (2012) 248 CLR 500, referred to
Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2014] HCA 41, (2014) 88 ALJR 980, referred to
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298, considered
Jones v Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre Ltd (No 2) [2010] FCA 399, (2010) 186 FCR 22, referred to
Shea v TruEnergy Services Pty Ltd (No 4) [2013] FCA 936, considered
Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] FCA 271, affirmed
Shea v Energy Australia Services Pty Ltd (No 7) [2014] FCA 109, affirmed
Date of hearing: 20 and 21 November 2014
Place: Sydney (via video link to Melbourne) (heard in Melbourne)
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 49
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr C Gunst QC with Mr R Millar
Solicitor for the Appellant: K R Legal
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr J Bourke QC with Mr P O'Grady
Solicitor for the Appellant: Minter Ellison

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 214 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

KATE SHEA
Appellant
AND:

ENERGYAUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGES:

RARES, FLICK & JAGOT JJ

DATE OF ORDER:

8 DECEMBER 2014

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

VID 214 of 2014
ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
BETWEEN:

KATE SHEA
Appellant
AND:

ENERGYAUSTRALIA SERVICES PTY LTD
Respondent

JUDGES:

RARES, FLICK & JAGOT JJ

DATE:

8 DECEMBER 2014

PLACE:

SYDNEY (VIA VIDEO LINK TO MELBOURNE) (HEARD IN MELBOURNE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

THE COURT:

  1. In January 2007, Ms Kate Shea commenced employment with EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd (“EnergyAustralia”) as the Director of Corporate…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2014] FCAFC 167
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd, the respondent, EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd, appealed a decision that found it had contravened the Fair Work Act 2009 by dismissing the applicant, Shea, for lodging a genuine complaint. The appeal was heard in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The primary judge had dismissed the appeal and the respondent sought to appeal that decision.

The legal issues in this case centred around the interpretation of the Fair Work Act 2009, specifically whether the dismissal of Shea was unjustifiable under the act. The respondent argued that the primary judge failed to consider the entirety of the evidence and drew adverse inferences from witnesses that were not called. The respondent also argued that the primary judge erred in finding that the dismissal was unjustifiable because Shea's complaint was genuine.

The Full Court found that the primary judge had given detailed and careful consideration to the evidence presented and had not erred in their decision. The Full Court held that the complaint made by Shea was genuine and that the dismissal was therefore unjustifiable under the Fair Work Act 2009. The Full Court also found that there was no merit in the respondent's argument that adverse inferences should be drawn from witnesses that were not called. The appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the primary judge was upheld.

The Full Court made an order dismissing the appeal and noting that the entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011. This decision highlights the importance of genuine complaints in the workplace and the need for employers to carefully consider the evidence before dismissing an employee for making such a complaint.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal be 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

The final ground of appeal, ground 9, should be rejected.Conclusions No error has been exposed in either decision under appeal. Each decision displayed detailed and careful attention by the respective primary Judge to the entirety of the evidence. The appeal should be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.