Trustees of the Order of Sisters of St Paul de Chartres v Kearney

Trustees of the Order of Sisters of St Paul de Chartres sought to challenge an arbitrator's determination in relation to an application to further cross-examine a worker during a review process. The dispute involved the interpretation and application of principles of procedural fairness and the case of Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22. The decision was made in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the arbitrator had erred in allowing the applicant to further cross-examine the worker during the review. Specifically, the court needed to determine if the principles of procedural fairness, as articulated in Fox v Percy, had been observed and if the arbitrator's decision was consistent with these principles. The court also considered whether the arbitrator's decision was open to review on the basis of an error of law.

In its reasoning, the court found that the arbitrator had not adequately considered the principles of procedural fairness when deciding to allow further cross-examination. The court held that the arbitrator's determination was not in accordance with the principles set out in Fox v Percy, which emphasise the importance of fairness in the review process. The court concluded that the arbitrator had failed to properly apply these principles, leading to an error of law. Consequently, the court revoked the arbitrator's determination and made its own orders, awarding the employer and making no order as to costs.