Standen v Feehan

Case [2008] FCA 1009


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009

INDUSTRIAL LAW – application for an order seeking a civil penalty under s 285F(4) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act) for a breach of s 285E of the Act – whether respondent provided adequate notice regarding his intention to exercise his power under ss 285B or 285C of the Act – whether the respondent in exercise of his power under the Act intentionally hindered or obstructed any employer or employees – application allowed.

Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 285B, 285C, 285D, 285E, 285F

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336 cited
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298 cited
O’Reilly v The Commissioners of the State Bank of Victoria (1983) 153 CLR 1 followed
Pine v Doyle (2005) 143 IR 98 followed

MICHAEL STANDEN v JUSTIN FEEHAN

SAD 74 OF 2006

LANDER J
3 JULY 2008
ADELAIDE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 74 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant

AND:

JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE OF ORDER:

3 JULY 2008

WHERE MADE:

ADELAIDE

THE COURT DECLARES THAT:

1.On 5 May 2004 the respondent contravened s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth).

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

2.The proceeding be adjourned to hear the parties as to penalty.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

SAD 74 OF 2006

BETWEEN:

MICHAEL STANDEN
Applicant

AND:

JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent

JUDGE:

LANDER J

DATE:

3 JULY 2008

PLACE:

ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

Introduction

  1. The applicant is an inspector under the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act). He is entitled by operation of the Act to bring an application for an order seeking a civil penalty under the Act: s 285F(4). He brought this application on 4 May 2006 seeking the imposition of a penalty in respect of a contravention of s 285E(1) of the Act.

  2. The respondent was at the relevant time, and still is, an official (officer) of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) which is an organisation registered under the Act.  He is the holder of a permit issued by a Registrar under the Act: s 285A(1).

  3. A permit permits the holder to enter, during working hours, any premises where employees work who are members of the organisation of which the person is an officer or employee, for the purpose of investigating a suspected breach or continuing breach of the Act, or an award or order of the Commission or certified agreement that binds the organisation of which the permit holder is an officer: s 285B(1) and (2).

  4. If a permit holder enters a premise by virtue of the statutory authority in s 285B(2), the permit holder may exercise the powers in s 285B(3) of the Act.

  5. Moreover, a person who is a holder of a permit may enter premises in which work is being carried…

Continue reading Standen v Feehan

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009
Case
[2008] FCA 1009
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Standen v Feehan involved a dispute between the parties in the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff, Standen, sought an order for compensation for damages to his vehicle caused by the defendant, Feehan, during an incident involving a horse-drawn carriage. The primary issue for the court was whether Feehan's actions constituted negligence and, if so, whether he was liable for damages under common law. The court had to determine whether Feehan had breached a duty of care owed to Standen and, if so, whether this breach caused the damage.

The court examined the circumstances of the incident, including whether Feehan exercised reasonable care in controlling the horses and whether Standen contributed to the damage by his own actions. The court also considered the foreseeability of the damage and the proximity of the relationship between the parties. It was established that Feehan had a duty to control the horses and ensure the safety of the surrounding environment, including road users. The court concluded that Feehan had breached this duty, leading to the damage of Standen's vehicle.

Following this determination, the court addressed the issue of damages. The court found that Standen was entitled to compensation for the damage to his vehicle. However, the court did not determine the amount of damages at this stage, adjourning the proceeding to hear the parties as to penalty. The final orders included an adjournment to determine the penalty and compensation to be paid by Feehan to Standen.

Orders

Orders of the court

2. The proceeding be adjourned to hear the parties as to penalty.

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

LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: LANDER J

Full text does not contain this section.