Sunbuild Pty Ltd v Ramsay

[2014] FCA 308

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Sunbuild Pty Ltd v Ramsay [2014] FCA 308

Citation:	Sunbuild Pty Ltd v Ramsay [2014] FCA 308
Appeal from:	Application for leave to appeal: Ramsay v Sunbuild [2014] FCA 54
Parties:	SUNBUILD PTY LTD v ANDREW RAMSAY, MICHAEL HUDDY, SCOTT VINK and DENNIS PETER MITCHELL
File number:	NTD 7 of 2014
Judge:	MANSFIELD J
Date of judgment:	31 March 2014
Date of hearing:	19 March 2014
Date of last submissions:	21 March 2014
Place:	Adelaide
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	No catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	11
Counsel for the Applicant:	A Wyvill SC
Solicitor for the Applicant:	Squire Sanders
Counsel for the Respondents:	W Friend SC
Solicitor for the Respondents:	Hall Payne

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NTD 7 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SUNBUILD PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

ANDREW RAMSAY
First Respondent

MICHAEL HUDDY
Second Respondent

SCOTT VINK
Third Respondent

DENNIS PETER MITCHELL
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE OF ORDER:	31 MARCH 2104
WHERE MADE:	ADELAIDE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for leave to appeal is refused.

2.Liberty to the parties to file within 14 days brief written submissions as to the costs of the application.

Note:Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NORTHERN TERRITORY DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	NTD 7 of 2014

BETWEEN:

SUNBUILD PTY LTD
Applicant

AND:

ANDREW RAMSAY
First Respondent

MICHAEL HUDDY
Second Respondent

SCOTT VINK
Third Respondent

DENNIS PETER MITCHELL
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	MANSFIELD J
DATE:	31 MARCH 2104
PLACE:	ADELAIDE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. The applicant seeks leave to appeal from the Orders made by a Judge of the Court in this matter (in which the applicant was the respondent) on 18 February 2014.

2. The Orders then made were to answer separate questions heard and determined separately from the principal part of the proceedings under r 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth). The questions and answers given were as follows:

   1.on the assumption that each of the applicants complied with all of the provisions of Division 3 of Part 3-4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the FW Act), yes, all of the applicants were permit holders who were entitled to enter the respondent’s worksite in accordance with Prat 3-4 within the meaning of s 501 of the FW Act; and

   2.on the assumption that all of the applicants complied with all of the provisions of Division 3 of Part 3-4 of the FW Act, yes, all of the applicants were permit holders exercising rights in accordance with Part 3-4 within the meaning of s 502(1) of the FW Act.

3. In effect, his Honour found that the prohibitions in ss 501 and 502 of the FW Act against refusing, delaying, hindering or obstructing the exercise of rights or entry to premises, the breach of which may give rise to civil remedies under the FW Act enforceable by the respondents to this application (and the applicants in the…