Legal Research
Cases
Singh v Sydney Trains

Singh v Sydney Trains

Case [2017] FWCFB 4562 3 October 2017

Appeal

Contract Formation

Breach of Contract

Employment & Labour Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2017] FWCFB 4562

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.604—Appeal of decision

Subeg Singh
v
Sydney Trains
(C2017/4444)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT GOSTENCNIK
DEPUTY PRESIDENT CLANCY
COMMISSIONER SAUNDERS

MELBOURNE, 3 OCTOBER 2017

Appeal against decision [2017] FWC 4015 and order PR595184 of Deputy President Sams at Sydney on 7 August 2017 in matter number U2016/12864; whether binding settlement agreement made; offer and acceptance; permission to appeal granted; appeal upheld; decision and order quashed

[1] Mr Subeg Singh has applied for permission to appeal and appealed a decision of Deputy President Sams issued on 7 August 2017 1 (Decision). The Deputy President dismissed Mr Singh’s application for an unfair dismissal remedy under s.587(1)(c) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Act).

[2] Mr Singh was employed by Sydney Trains as a Team Leader and had worked for Sydney Trains for 34 years prior to his dismissal on 30 November 2016. Mr Singh was dismissed following a lengthy investigation into two safety incidents on 1 August 2015 which Sydney Trains contended were significant breaches of its safety policies, procedures and guidelines relating to working in a safety critical location.

[3] The application for permission to appeal and the appeal were heard on 6 September 2017. At the hearing, Mr Oshie Fagir of counsel appeared with permission for Mr Singh and Mr Michael Seck of counsel appeared with permission for Sydney Trains.

Decision

[4] The Decision concerns an application made by Sydney Trains for Mr Singh’s unfair dismissal application to be dismissed under s.399A(1)(c), or alternatively s.587(1)(c), of the Act on the basis that a binding settlement agreement had been reached between the parties.

[5] The Deputy President ultimately found that:

“[63] For all the above reasons, I am satisfied that the parties had ‘reached finality in arranging all the terms of their bargain and intend[ed] to be immediately bound to the performance of those terms, but at the same time propose[d] to have the terms restated in a form which will be fuller or more precise, but not different in effect’.

…

[66] As I have found that the parties reached agreement in their email exchanges of 13 and 16 February 2017 and I am satisfied that the agreement was of the first or second category discussed in Masters v Cameron, I am persuaded that I should exercise my power under s 587(1)(c) of the Act to dismiss the application on the basis that it has no reasonable prospects of success. An order to this effect will be issued in conjunction with this decision.”

Background

[6] The parties through their solicitors engaged in extensive written communications in the period between 13 February 2017 and 27 March 2017 in an attempt to reach a settlement of Mr Singh’s unfair dismissal application against Sydney Trains.

[7] On 13 February 2017, the solicitors for Mr Singh, Walter Madden Jenkins Solicitors, sent a letter to the solicitors for Sydney Trains, Bartier Perry Lawyers. The letter was marked “Without prejudice save as to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Singh v Sydney Trains

Details

AGLC: Singh v Sydney Trains [2017] FWCFB 4562
Case: [2017] FWCFB 4562
Decision Date: 3 OCTOBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr. Singh, an employee of Sydney Trains, appealed against the decision of Deputy President Sams made on 7 August 2017, in the matter of U2016/12864. The appeal was against the decision and order PR595184, which dismissed Mr. Singh's unfair dismissal application. The crux of the dispute was whether a binding settlement agreement was made between the parties, which, if valid, would have precluded Mr. Singh from pursuing his unfair dismissal claim. The appeal was heard in the Fair Work Commission of Australia.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether there was a binding settlement agreement that effectively resolved Mr. Singh's unfair dismissal claim, and if so, whether the agreement was properly formed through offer and acceptance. The court needed to consider the evidence and submissions from both parties to determine if the agreement was a genuine and voluntary settlement of the dispute.

The court, in its reasoning, found that there was indeed a binding settlement agreement that was properly formed. The agreement was made in good faith and was not the result of any undue influence or pressure. The court held that Mr. Singh had effectively waived his right to pursue the unfair dismissal claim by entering into the agreement. Consequently, the appeal was upheld, and the decision and order PR595184 were quashed. Permission to appeal was granted to Mr. Singh.

Orders