FEDERAL MAGISTRATES COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| WILLIAMS v MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD | [2009] FMCA 511 |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – whether employee a casual employee – whether employee entitled to annual leave. |
| INDUSTRIAL LAW – entitlement to annual leave – whether set-off available. |
| ESTOPPEL – Whether estoppel defeats statutory guarantee. |
| CONTRACT – Mistake – rectification. |
| Acts Interpretation Act 1901(Cth), s.15AA Industrial Relations Act 1979 (WA), s.85 Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth), ss.5(1), 178, 182, 185, 186, 227, 228, 232, 233, 235, 262, 264, 635, 638(1), (4), (5), (11) and (12) |
| RP Meagher, JD Heydon and MJ Leeming (Eds) Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th Edn) (Chatswood: Butterworths LexisNexis, 2002) |
| Applicant: | ADRIAN CLIFFORD WILLIAMS |
| Respondent: | MACMAHON MINING SERVICES PTY LTD |
| File Number: | PEG 83 of 2008 |
| Judgment of: | Lucev FM |
| Hearing date: | 5 November 2008 |
| Date of Last Submission: | 5 November 2008 |
| Delivered at: | Perth |
| Delivered on: | 28 May 2009 |
REPRESENTATION
| Counsel for the Applicant: | Mr D.H. Schapper |
| Solicitors for the Applicant: | Derek Schapper Solicitor |
| Counsel for the Respondent: | Mr T.H.F. Caspersz and Ms R. Harding |
| Solicitors for the Respondent: | Jackson McDonald |
DECLARATIONS AND ORDERS
DECLARATIONS
The Court declares that:
Mr Williams was:
(a)not a casual employee for the purposes of s.227 of the WR Act; and
(b)subject to declaration (2) below, entitled to annual leave payment for accrued annual leave on termination of employment in accordance with ss.232…
Continue reading Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Williams v Macmahon Mining Services Pty Ltd [2009] FMCA 511
- Case
- [2009] FMCA 511
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal issues that the FWC had to address included whether Mr Williams was entitled to payment for his accrued annual leave, and if so, what the appropriate amount of compensation would be. Additionally, the FWC had to consider whether there were any set-offs or deductions that Macmahon Mining could make from the amount owed to Mr Williams, and whether these were lawful under the relevant employment laws and awards. The determination of these issues was pivotal in ensuring that both parties' rights and obligations were properly balanced and enforced.
In its reasoning, the FWC examined the relevant provisions of the applicable awards, as well as the common law principles that govern the payment of accrued annual leave in cases of employment termination. The FWC concluded that Mr Williams was indeed entitled to payment for his accrued annual leave, subject to any lawful set-offs that Macmahon Mining might be able to make. The FWC found that the employer had not provided sufficient evidence to justify any set-offs, and accordingly, ordered that Mr Williams should be paid his accrued annual leave. The matter of the precise form of the order and the assessment of any potential set-offs was left for the parties to determine through further negotiations or legal proceedings. The FWC also reserved the question of costs and scheduled a directions hearing to manage the progression of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
The Court orders:
3.
The parties to confer on the appropriate form of an order, if any, to reflect Mr Williams’ entitlement to be paid accrued annual leave upon termination of employment taking into account any set-off to which Macmahon Mining is entitled.
4.
Costs, if any, be reserved.
5.
The matter be adjourned to a directions hearing at 9.45am on 12 June 2009.
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.