Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – Fair Work Act – Claim alleging adverse action in contravention of general protections – applicant claims employment terminated because of family and carer responsibilities – respondent claims dismissal for genuine reasons.
The respondent pay to the applicant the sum of $4,223.75 within 30 days of the date of these orders;
The application be adjourned to a date to be fixed for a penalty hearing in respect of the contraventions of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) found to have been committed by the respondent.
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Tahi v Oxican Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 3722
CORRIGENDUM
In paragraph 1 of the Orders remove the sum “$5,040.95” and replace with the sum “$4,223.75”.
In paragraph 160 of the Reasons for Judgment remove the sum “$5,040.95” and replace with the sum “$4,223.75”.
In paragraph 167 of the Reasons for Judgment remove the sum “$5,040.95” and replace with the sum “$4,223.75”.
I certify that the preceding three (3) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Corrigendum to the Reasons for Judgment herein of Judge Jarrett
Associate:
Dated: 15 January 2019
FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT BRISBANE
BRG 1125 of 2016
KERRY TAHI
Applicant
And
OXICAN PTY LTD
Respondent
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
Between 30 May and 1 September, 2016 Ms Tahi was employed by the respondent as a trainee sales person. Oxican Pty Ltd conducted business as a real estate agent and carried on business in south-east Queensland trading as QMT Realty.
On 5 December, 2016 Ms Tahi commenced these proceedings alleging that the respondent had taken adverse action against her in contravention of the Fair…
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 Tahi v Oxican Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Tahi v Oxican Pty Ltd [2018] FCCA 3722
Case
[2018] FCCA 3722
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Tahi (the applicant) brought proceedings against Oxican Pty Ltd (the respondent) in the Federal Court of Australia. The dispute concerned the respondent's alleged contravention of section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL), which prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. The applicant sought an injunction and damages.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's conduct in marketing and selling its "Miracle Grow" plant food product was misleading or deceptive, thereby contravening section 18 of the ACL. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the representations made by the respondent regarding the product's efficacy and benefits were substantiated and not likely to mislead consumers as to its true nature or capabilities.
Judge Jarrett found that the respondent's representations, particularly those suggesting the product would significantly enhance plant growth and yield, were not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court applied the principles established in cases concerning misleading representations, focusing on the likely effect of the representations on the target consumer. It was held that a reasonable consumer, in the circumstances, would likely be led to believe the product possessed capabilities beyond what was scientifically demonstrable or proven, thus constituting misleading conduct.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the respondent be permanently restrained from making the representations found to be misleading. The Court also awarded damages to the applicant, the quantum of which was to be determined at a later stage.