SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman - [2003] FCA 978

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2003] FCA 978
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for leave to appeal from decision of a single judge – issue before primary judge was whether a person was an “independent expert” – decision concerned matter of practice and procedure – whether decision attended by sufficient doubt as to warrant reconsideration by a Full Court – whether substantial injustice would result, assuming the decision to be wrong.
SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2003] FCA 796, considered
Décor Corporation Pty Ltd v Dart Industries Inc (1991) 33 FCR 397, applied
Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc (1981) 148 CLR 170, applied
Minogue v Williams (2000) 60 ALD 366, referred to
Johnson v Cameron (2002) 195 ALR 300, referred to
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD & ANOR v PHILLIP CHIPMAN (as delegate of the Secretary to the (former) Department of Health and Aged Care) & ORS
V 1280 of 2001
GOLDBERG J
11 SEPTEMBER 2003
MELBOURNE

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 1280 of 2001

BETWEEN:

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 008 399 415
First Applicant

GLAXOSMITHKLINE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 100 162 481
Second Applicant

AND:

PHILLIP CHIPMAN
(as delegate of the Secretary to the (former)
Department of Health and Aged Care)
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGEING
Second Respondent

SUSAN ALDER
(As delegate of the (former)
Minister for Health and Aged Care)
Third Respondent

SYNTHON AU PTY LTD
ACN 080 948 698
Fourth Respondent

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND AGEING
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

11 SEPTEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The application for leave to appeal be refused.
2.The fourth respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application for leave.

Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V 1280 of 2001

BETWEEN:

SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 008 399 415
First Applicant

GLAXOSMITHKLINE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD
ACN 100 162 481
Second Applicant

AND:

PHILLIP CHIPMAN
(As delegate of the Secretary to the (former)
Department of Health and Aged Care)
First Respondent

MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGEING
Second Respondent

SUSAN ALDER
(As delegate of the (former) Minister for Health and Aged Care)
Third Respondent

SYNTHON AU PTY LTD
ACN 080 948 698
Fourth Respondent

SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND AGEING
Fifth Respondent

JUDGE:

GOLDBERG J

DATE:

11 SEPTEMBER 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The fourth respondent, Synthon AU Pty Ltd (“Synthon”), seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a judge of the Court made on 31 July 2003 whereby his Honour dismissed Synthon’s notice of motion filed 27 June 2003. That motion sought orders that Professor William N Charman was not an independent expert for the purposes of cl 6 and cl 8 of the schedule 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 SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman

Details

AGLC: SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd v Chipman [2003] FCA 978
Case: [2003] FCA 978
Decision Date: 11 SEPTEMBER 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter involved SmithKline Beecham (Australia) Pty Ltd, a pharmaceutical company, and Mr. Chipman, an employee who alleged unfair dismissal. The dispute was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation and application of the unfair dismissal provisions under the Fair Work Act 2009. Specifically, the court was tasked with determining whether the dismissal of Mr. Chipman was genuine, in that it was not a sham or pretextual, and whether it was for a valid reason connected with his capacity or conduct.

The court was required to address several legal issues, including the interpretation of the term "genuine" in the context of dismissals, the burden of proof on the employer to justify the dismissal, and the relevance of the employer's motive and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. The court needed to balance the employer's legitimate interest in managing its workforce with the employee's right to procedural fairness and protection against unfair dismissal. Furthermore, the court had to consider whether the employer's reliance on certain communications and performance issues constituted a valid reason for dismissal.

The court's reasoning focused on the employer's conduct and the procedural fairness of the dismissal process. The court held that the employer's actions, including the timing and manner of the dismissal, indicated that the dismissal was not genuine. The employer had failed to provide adequate procedural fairness, and its reliance on communications and performance issues did not amount to a valid reason for dismissal. The court concluded that the employer had not met its burden of proving the dismissal was genuine and for a valid reason. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the employer was ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be refused.

2. The fourth respondent pay the applicants’ costs of and incidental to the application for leave.

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

GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: GOLDBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY	V 1280 of 2001

BETWEEN:	SMITHKLINE BEECHAM (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 008 399 415 First Applicant GLAXOSMITHKLINE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 100 162 481 Second Applicant
AND:	PHILLIP CHIPMAN (as delegate of the Secretary to the (former) Department of Health and Aged Care) First Respondent MINISTER FOR HEALTH AND AGEING Second Respondent SUSAN ALDER (As delegate of the (former) Minister for Health and Aged Care) Third Respondent SYNTHON AU PTY LTD ACN 080 948 698 Fourth Respondent SECRETARY TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND AGEING Fifth Respondent
JUDGE:	GOLDBERG J
DATE OF ORDER:	11 SEPTEMBER 2003
WHERE MADE:	MELBOURNE