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 followedMICHAEL 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
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.
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).
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).
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.
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
- AGLC
- Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1009
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: LANDER J
Full text does not contain this section.