The FairWork Brief
Plain-English summaries of recent Australian workplace law decisions. Every case links back to the original source on the court or regulator's website.
General information only, not legal advice. Each summary is drafted by AI from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. About these summaries & corrections →
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited (Costs)
Turner, who represented himself (a litigant in person), brought proceedings against Chandler Macleod Group Limited under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). After the substantive matter was resolved, Chandler Macleod applied to the Federal Court of Australia for a costs order against Turner. The court considered two questions: whether Turner had started the proceedings without reasonable cause, and whether any unreasonable act or omission by Turner caused Chandler Macleod to incur legal costs. The court also considered what weight, if any, should be given to the fact that Turner was self-represented.
Paulsen v City of Hobart
Paulsen brought a general protections court application against the City of Hobart under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). The application was not filed within the statutory time limit set by the Act. Paulsen applied for an extension of time under section 370(a)(ii) of the Act. The case came before the Federal Court of Australia, which considered whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay in filing.
Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) v Chief Commissioner of Police (Victoria)
The Police Federation of Australia (Victoria Police Branch) brought a dispute about how overtime entitlements should be calculated under an enterprise agreement covering Victoria Police officers. The central question was whether short periods of overtime worked across a fortnight, each individually below a 30-minute threshold, could be added together to trigger a payment entitlement. The Chief Commissioner of Police argued that only continuous periods of at least 30 minutes counted. The matter came before the Full Court of the Federal Court on appeal, which also considered whether the Court had jurisdiction to resolve the dispute.
Fair Work Ombudsman v New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd (Extension of Time)
The Fair Work Ombudsman filed a notice of appeal in the Federal Court of Australia and then applied for orders relating to how that notice could be served on the respondent, New Switch Electrical Pty Ltd. Specifically, the Ombudsman sought three procedural orders: that service be treated as having occurred by a deemed or substituted method under the Federal Court Rules 2011; that the usual requirement to serve the notice of appeal be dispensed with; and that extra time be allowed for service of the notice of appeal. The application concerned procedural steps in the appeal process rather than the underlying merits of any workplace dispute.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Gill (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Penalty)
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought a penalty proceeding in the Federal Court of Australia against Gill following findings that Gill had contravened sections 343, 346 and 348 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). Those provisions protect employees from adverse action taken to coerce them or because they have exercised, or proposed to exercise, workplace rights. The case became known as the Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case. The penalty hearing required the court to assess the nature, extent and circumstances of the contraventions, any loss or damage suffered, Gill's contrition, prior contraventions, and the need for deterrence. The court also considered the double-jeopardy principle under section 556, which prevents a person being penalised twice for the same conduct.
Reeve v Fair Work Commission
The applicant, Reeve, brought an interlocutory application in the Federal Court of Australia seeking the recusal of a decision-maker at the Fair Work Commission. Reeve argued that there was either actual bias or apprehended bias on the part of the relevant member, and that procedural fairness had been denied in the underlying Commission proceedings. The application came before the Federal Court as a challenge to the Commission's conduct rather than to a final substantive decision.
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd v Schoof
Hitachi Rail STS Australia Pty Ltd sought clarification from the Federal Court about how to calculate penalty rates and overtime under its enterprise agreement. The central dispute was whether certain allowances paid to employees should be counted as part of the 'base hourly rate' when working out those penalty and overtime amounts. A secondary question was whether a waiting time penalty provision, which applies when 'wages' are not paid on time, also applied to unpaid allowances.
Gao v Macquarie Bank Limited
Gao brought a discrimination claim in the Federal Court of Australia against Macquarie Bank Limited and individual respondents. The individual respondents had not been named as respondents in the original complaint lodged with the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC), though they had been notified of the complaint as persons subject to adverse allegations under the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth). The individual respondents applied for summary dismissal of the claims against them on that basis. A separate application was also made to strike out paragraphs in Gao's statement of claim that went beyond the scope of the original AHRC complaint.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Jats Joint Pty Ltd
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against Jats Joint Pty Ltd concerning the interpretation of the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Award 2010. The central dispute was whether a night shift loading applied to shifts worked before or after a 'sleepover' period, whether a sleepover counts as 'work' under the Award, and whether a sleepover is itself a 'shift'. The case turned on how the Award's provision, that night shift loading is payable for the 'whole of such shift', applies where a shift spans midnight to 6.00 am but includes a sleepover.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Torrens University Australia Limited
The Fair Work Ombudsman issued a compliance notice to Torrens University Australia Limited under section 716(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009. The notice concerned how the university was paying casual academic staff for lecturing work. The dispute turned on the correct interpretation of the Higher Education Industry – Academic Staff – Award 2010 and its 2020 successor. Specifically, it concerned the meaning of 'associated working time' built into the hourly payment rates for casual lecturers. The matter came before the Full Federal Court on appeal.
Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
This case involves an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia. The appellant, Ms Kaur, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had upheld the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship's refusal to grant her a Student (Temporary) visa (Subclass 590). The appeal centred on whether the primary judge was correct to find that a procedural notice issued by the Tribunal under section 359 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was valid, and whether the Tribunal had additional obligations to inform the appellant of something before making its decision.
Rizkalla v CDC Geelong Pty Ltd
A self-represented litigant, Rizkalla, brought a general protections claim under Part 3-1 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) against CDC Geelong Pty Ltd and related respondents. The claim sought pecuniary penalties for alleged contraventions of civil penalty provisions. The second to fourth respondents were alleged to have been involved in those contraventions. The matter came before the Federal Court on the respondents' application to strike out Rizkalla's amended statement of claim under rule 16.21 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), on the basis that the pleading was deficient. The pleading apparently incorporated cross-references to a schedule of particulars.
Roohizadegan v Technology One Limited (No 7)
This case is the seventh set of proceedings arising from a general protections dispute between Roohizadegan and Technology One Limited. After the substantive matter was resolved, Technology One applied for a costs order under section 570 of the Fair Work Act 2009. The key event was a Calderbank offer, which is a formal settlement offer made outside court that can affect who pays costs later, of $2.2 million made by Technology One to Roohizadegan during the trial. Roohizadegan did not accept the offer. The Federal Court was asked to decide whether that rejection amounted to unreasonable conduct justifying a costs order against Roohizadegan.
Liebenberg v IP Australia
Ms Liebenberg brought a claim against IP Australia, arguing she had been constructively dismissed under section 386(1)(b) of the Fair Work Act 2009. Constructive dismissal occurs when an employee resigns because their employer's conduct left them with no reasonable choice but to leave. The Fair Work Commission found there was no constructive dismissal. Ms Liebenberg then sought permission to appeal to the Full Bench of the Commission, which refused permission. She then applied to the Federal Court of Australia, seeking judicial review of the Full Bench's decision on the basis that it was affected by jurisdictional error, meaning the Commission had exceeded or misapplied its legal authority.
Turner v Chandler Macleod Group Limited
Turner brought a claim in the Federal Court of Australia against Chandler Macleod Group Limited and various other respondents. The case came before the court on applications by the respondents for summary judgment and to strike out or set aside Turner's claim. The respondents argued that the Originating Application and Statement of Claim had no reasonable prospect of success. Central to the dispute was Turner's attempt to relitigate matters that had previously been resolved through deeds of settlement and release. Turner also sought to have those deeds set aside, but the court found that claim was inadequately pleaded. The claims also faced expiry issues, though the source text is truncated at that point.
Ioakimidis v Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd (No 2)
A worker named Ioakimidis brought a case in the Federal Court of Australia against Lygon Court Travel Pty Ltd and two associated individual respondents. The case concerned alleged breaches of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), specifically failures to keep proper employee records, failures to provide payslips, and failures to pay annual leave loading. The first respondent company admitted to the contraventions, which were carried out by the second and third respondents. The admissions were made after the matter had already been listed for trial.
Grofski v Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd (No 2)
The applicant, Grofski, brought a claim against Peabody Energy Australia PCI Mine Management Pty Ltd under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). During the proceedings, Grofski made an interlocutory application (a procedural step taken during an ongoing case, before a final hearing) seeking leave to further amend the originating application and statement of claim. In the course of that application, Grofski provided two further amended statements of claim to the respondents and supplied extensive material. Grofski also filed a fifth further amended statement of claim in breach of court orders. The respondents sought a costs order against Grofski under section 570 of the Fair Work Act, which limits when costs can be awarded in workplace matters.
Offshore Employers Association Limited v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union
The Offshore Employers Association and the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union were parties to an enterprise agreement covering offshore workers. A dispute arose and was referred to the Fair Work Commission for arbitration. The Commission made an arbitral award. A preliminary question then came before the Federal Court of Australia: did the Commission's award concern the rights of one particular employee, or did it apply to all employees covered by the enterprise agreement? A related issue was whether the parties had widened the scope of the original dispute by agreement after it was first referred to the Commission, and whether any such widening was within the Commission's lawful authority.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (Kwinana Bulk Jetty Case) (Costs)
The Fair Work Ombudsman brought proceedings against the Construction, Forestry and Maritime Employees Union (CFMEU) and a second respondent under the Fair Work Act 2009 in relation to conduct at the Kwinana Bulk Jetty. The primary proceedings concluded with the court finding the first respondent (the CFMEU) not liable for the actions of the second respondent. Following that outcome, a costs application was made. The question before the Federal Court was whether the CFMEU's rejection of a settlement offer made during the proceedings amounted to an 'unreasonable act' under section 570(2)(b) of the Fair Work Act, which would allow a costs order to be made against it. The court considered the factors set out in Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Maritime in assessing whether the rejection of that offer was unreasonable.
Lye v Fair Work Commission
The applicant, Lye, applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an interlocutory injunction. The injunction sought to stop the Fair Work Commission from continuing appeal proceedings and from requiring Lye to participate in those proceedings without first lawfully considering a request for reasonable adjustments. The application was partly in the nature of a stay of the Commission proceedings. The Court considered whether there was a serious question to be tried, whether the balance of convenience favoured granting the injunction, and whether exceptional circumstances had been shown.
Gussen v Swinburne University of Technology
Dr Gussen brought proceedings against Swinburne University of Technology involving matters under the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth). During those proceedings, he made an interlocutory application in the Federal Court seeking to restrain Swinburne from enforcing a costs order that had been made against him in the Magistrates' Court. The primary judge dismissed that interlocutory application and ordered Dr Gussen to pay Swinburne's costs. Dr Gussen then applied to the Federal Court of Australia for an extension of time and leave to appeal that interlocutory costs order, arguing that the costs protections in section 570 of the Fair Work Act applied and prevented such a costs order being made against him.
Nimhurchu v QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd
Ms Nimhurchu brought a claim in the Federal Court of Australia against QBE Insurance (Australia) Pty Ltd, seeking declarations of right and related orders under section 21 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). She relied on the Court's accrued jurisdiction to support her claim for ancillary relief. The case raised questions about whether the Federal Court was the appropriate forum, particularly because a specialist tribunal existed as an alternative avenue for the dispute. The matter came before the Court for determination of those jurisdictional and discretionary questions.
Fair Work Ombudsman v Super Retail Group Limited (Listing of trial)
The Fair Work Ombudsman has brought proceedings against Super Retail Group Limited in the Federal Court of Australia. This decision concerns a procedural step only: listing the matter for its final hearing. The court considered the availability of Senior Counsel retained by one of the parties when selecting suitable hearing dates.
Chambers v Broadway Homes Pty Ltd (No 2)
Ms Chambers brought a general protections claim against Broadway Homes Pty Ltd after her employment was terminated. She alleged she was dismissed because she exercised, or proposed to exercise, workplace rights, including rights relating to her pay. She also alleged she was underpaid for duties she performed and was not given reasonable notice of termination. The matter was initially commenced in the Fair Work Commission in the same month as her termination before proceeding to the Federal Court. Broadway Homes conceded that a contract of employment existed between the parties.
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd v Naskovski
Hisense Australia Pty Ltd applied for leave to appeal part of a Federal Court judgment. The primary judge found that Hisense contravened s 535(3) of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) and reg 3.42 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth) by failing to provide employee Naskovski with a copy of his employment contract when he requested it. The appeal raised questions about whether an employment contract is a type of record required to be kept under reg 3.32 of the Fair Work Regulations 2009 (Cth), and whether a request for a copy of an employment contract triggers the employer's obligation to produce it.