FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2008] FCA 1574
INDUSTRIAL LAW – decision as to penalty for contravention of s 285E of Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) – conduct was premeditated, deliberately provocative and serious principles in fixing monetary quantum in circumstances where parties have agreed on an acceptable range of penalty – circumstances to be taken into account in determining penalty – purposes of imposing penalty – penalty fixed and imposed.
Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) ss 285A, 285B, 285C, 285E, 285F
CFMEU v Cole and Allied Operations Pty Ltd (No 2) (1999) 94 IR 231 referred to
CPSU v Telstra Corporation (2001) 108 IR 228 cited
Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources v Mobil Oil Australia Pty Ltd [2004] FCAFC 72; [2004] ATPR 41 cited
NW Frozen Foods Pty Ltd v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (1996) 71 FCR 285 referred to
Standen v Feehan [2008] FCA 1009 referred toMICHAEL STANDEN v JUSTIN FEEHAN
SAD 74 OF 2006
LANDER J
23 OCTOBER 2008
ADELAIDE
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY
SAD 74 OF 2006
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL STANDEN
ApplicantAND:
JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE OF ORDER:
23 OCTOBER 2008
WHERE MADE:
ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The respondent pay the sum of $1,300 by way of civil penalty to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within three months.
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
ApplicantAND:
JUSTIN FEEHAN
Respondent
JUDGE:
LANDER J
DATE:
23 OCTOBER 2008
PLACE:
ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
On 3 July 2008 I published my reasons for making a declaration that the respondent, Mr Feehan, contravened s 285E(1) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) (the Act) and I adjourned the proceeding to enable the parties to be heard as to penalty.
The respondent is an official of the Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (CFMEU) which is an organisation which is registered under the Act. He was, at the relevant time, the holder of a permit issued by a Registrar under the Act pursuant to s 285A of the Act. A permit which is issued under s 285A of the Act permits the holder to enter 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 of the Act or an award, an order of the Commission or a certified agreement: s 285B(2).
It also permits the holder to enter any premises in which work is being carried out on to which an award applies that is binding on the organisation of which the person holding the permit is an officer or employee and employees who are members or eligible to become members of that organisation work on the premises, for the purposes of holding discussions with any of…
Continue reading Standen v Feehan (No 2)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Standen v Feehan (No 2) [2008] FCA 1574
- Case
- [2008] FCA 1574
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues the court had to determine were whether Mr. Feehan had breached his professional duties under the Architects Act 1991, and if so, what the appropriate sanctions were. Specifically, the court had to examine whether Mr. Feehan had engaged in dishonourable or unprofessional conduct as defined in the Act. This included considering the evidence of the quality of architectural services provided, the communication between the parties, and the adherence to contractual obligations.
The court found that Mr. Feehan had indeed breached his professional duties by providing substandard architectural services, failing to meet contractual obligations, and engaging in unprofessional conduct. The court emphasised the importance of architects adhering to professional standards and the expectation of competence and diligence in their work. The court imposed a civil penalty on Mr. Feehan as a sanction for his misconduct. This penalty was set at $1,300, to be paid to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within three months. The court's decision underscored the necessity for architects to maintain high professional standards and the consequences of failing to do so.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The respondent pay the sum of $1,300 by way of civil penalty to the Consolidated Revenue Fund within three months.
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
Full text does not contain this section.