Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1813

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185—Enterprise agreement

Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd
(AG2013/343)

ZINFRA CONTRACTING PTY LTD WHEATSTONE PROJECT AGREEMENT 2013

Building, metal and civil construction industries
DEPUTY PRESIDENT MCCARTHY	PERTH, 26 MARCH 2013

Application for the approval of the Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013.

[1] An application has been made for approval of an enterprise agreement known as the Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013 (the Agreement). The application was made pursuant to s.185 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (the Act). The Agreement is a greenfields agreement.

[2] I am satisfied that each of the requirements of ss.186 and 187 of the Act as are relevant to this application for approval have been met.

[3] The Agreement is approved and, in accordance with s.54 of the Act, will operate from seven days from the date of this decision. The nominal expiry date of the Agreement is four years from the date of this decision.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd applied for the approval of the Zinfra Contracting Pty Ltd Wheatstone Project Agreement 2013. The application was made pursuant to section 129 of the Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act 2002. The dispute arose from a claim for payment under the Wheatstone Project Agreement. The respondent, Wheatstone Project Partnership, sought to have the application dismissed on the basis that the claim for payment was frivolous or vexatious. The Federal Circuit Court heard the matter and was required to determine whether the claim for payment was frivolous or vexatious and whether the application for adjudication should be approved.

The court considered the statutory criteria for determining whether a claim for payment is frivolous or vexatious. The court examined the evidence and submissions provided by both parties and assessed the merits of the claim for payment. The court found that the respondent had failed to establish that the claim for payment was frivolous or vexatious. The court considered the evidence and submissions provided by the applicant and found that the claim for payment had reasonable prospects of success. The court approved the application for adjudication and ordered that the respondent pay the amount claimed by the applicant within the timeframe specified in the Act.

The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the evidence and submissions provided by both parties. The court found that the respondent had not met the burden of proof required to establish that the claim for payment was frivolous or vexatious. The court considered the merits of the claim for payment and found that the applicant had established a prima facie case for the amount claimed. The court ordered that the respondent pay the amount claimed by the applicant within the timeframe specified in the Act. The court's decision provides clarity on the application of the security of payment provisions and the criteria for determining whether a claim for payment is frivolous or vexatious.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established