FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Wang v MTC Australia Ltd [2018] FCA 1037
Appeal from: Wang v MTC Australia Ltd [2017] FCCA 2840 File number: NSD 1995 of 2017 Judge: FLICK J Date of judgment: 12 July 2018 Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – adverse action – where the Respondent took adverse action against the Appellant by terminating her employment – whether the reason for termination was the exercise of a workplace right – whether the primary Judge erred in concluding that the Appellant was dismissed because of her performance and not because of the exercise of a workplace right – where onus of proof reversed – whether the Respondent discharged its onus of proof
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – apprehended bias – whether there was a reasonable apprehension that the primary Judge was biased
INDUSTRIAL LAW – costs – where matter arising under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where discretion to award costs enlivened – whether the primary Judge erred in ordering that there be no order as to costs – whether the exercise of the discretion of the primary Judge infected by error of the kind described in House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Legislation: Fair Work Act2009 (Cth) ss 361, 570
Federal Court of Australia Act1976 (Cth) s 43
Cases cited: Australian Workers’ Union v Leighton Contractors Pty Ltd (No2) [2013] FCAFC 23, (2013) 232 FCR 428
Fair Work Ombudsman v Grouped Property Services Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 810
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Queensland Wire Industries Pty Ltd v Broken Hill Proprietary Co Ltd (1987) 17 FCR 211
Sankararamalingam v InfoTech Professionals Pty Ltd [2017] FCA 917
Date of hearing: 23 May 2018 Registry: New South Wales Division: Fair Work Division National Practice Area: Employment & Industrial Relations Category: Catchwords Number of paragraphs: 41 Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Respondent: The Appellant/Cross-Respondent appeared in person Counsel for the Respondent and Cross-Appellant: Mr I Latham Solicitor for the Respondent and Cross-Appellant: Gilchrist Connell ORDERS
NSD 1995 of 2017 BETWEEN: ANNIE (RAN) WANG
Appellant
AND: MTC AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Respondent
AND BETWEEN: MTC AUSTRALIA LIMITED
Cross-Appellant
AND: ANNIE (RAN) WANG
Cross-Respondent
JUDGE:
FLICK J
DATE OF ORDER:
12 JULY 2018
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The appeal is dismissed.
2.The cross-appeal is dismissed.
3.The Appellant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal, other than costs incurred in respect to the cross-appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
The Appellant in the present proceeding, Ms Annie (Ran) Wang, was employed by the Respondent, MTC Australia Ltd (“MTC Australia”).
Ms Wang commenced employment with MTC Australia in September 2014. Her remuneration package was reviewed in August 2015. On 16 June 2016, she made a complaint about bullying and harassment. Her contract was renewed on 20 June 2016. Ms Wang’s complaint was thereafter investigated. In…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Wang v MTC Australia Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] FCA 1037
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties, focusing on whether the primary Judge's findings were supported by the evidence and whether there was any error in the decision-making process. The court examined the reasons provided by the primary Judge for concluding that the termination was due to performance issues rather than the exercise of a workplace right. Furthermore, the court assessed if the onus of proof was properly discharged by the Respondent and whether the primary Judge was biased. The court also evaluated the primary Judge's discretion to award costs in the appeal, considering if the decision was infected by error.
The court found that the primary Judge's decision was supported by the evidence and that no error was found in the reasoning or the discharge of the onus of proof by the Respondent. The court concluded that there was no reasonable apprehension of bias against the primary Judge. Regarding the costs, the court determined that the primary Judge's decision not to award costs in the appeal was influenced by error, leading to the exercise of the discretion to award costs against the Appellant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the cross-appeal was also dismissed. The Appellant was ordered to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal, except for those incurred in respect of the cross-appeal.
The court's orders were that the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, and the Appellant was to pay the Respondent's costs of the appeal, excluding costs related to the cross-appeal. This decision followed the principles set out in the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and relevant case law regarding costs and the discretion of the court in awarding them.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The cross-appeal is dismissed.
3. The Appellant is to pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal, other than costs incurred in respect to the cross-appeal.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.