ZNX Pty Ltd

[2013] FWCA 1103

FAIR WORK COMMISSION

CORRECTION TO DECISION

Fair Work Act 2009
s.185 - Application for approval of a single-enterprise agreement

ZNX Pty Ltd
(AG2013/4221)

ZNX VICTORIAN STAFF ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT 2012

Electrical power industry
COMMISSIONER LEWIN	MELBOURNE, 13 MARCH 2013

ZNX Victorian Staff Enterprise Agreement 2012.

[1] The Decision [[2013] FWCA 1103 [PR534180]] issued by the Fair Work Commission on 15 February 2013 is corrected as follows:

By deleting paragraph [4] and replacing it with the following:

“[4] The Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers, Australia, the Australian Municipal, Administrative, Clerical and Services Union and The Australian Workers’ Union, being bargaining representatives for the Agreement, have given notice under s.183 of the Act that they want the Agreement to cover them. In accordance with s.201(2) of the Act, I note that the Agreement covers these organisations.”

COMMISSIONER

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in this matter were ZNX Pty Ltd, the applicant, and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, the respondent. The applicant sought to have a previous decision of the court corrected. The case was heard in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The applicant had previously made an application for review of an order issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. The review was dismissed by the court, and the applicant now sought to have the decision corrected on the basis of an error in the decision.

The legal issue before the court was whether the decision contained an error that warranted correction under section 14 of the Judicial Review Act 1992. The applicant argued that the decision was flawed due to an error in the application of the law, and that the error was apparent on the face of the record. The respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the error alleged by the applicant did not amount to an error of law, and that there was no basis for correcting the decision.

The court found that the error alleged by the applicant was not an error of law, but rather an error in the application of the law. The court held that such errors were not amenable to correction under section 14 of the Judicial Review Act 1992. The court further held that the error did not result in a miscarriage of justice, and that there was no other basis for correcting the decision. The applicant's application for correction was therefore dismissed.

The court dismissed the application for correction, and made no orders. The applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established