TESA Group Pty Ltd v Mining and Energy Union
Citation: [2026] FCAFC 86
What happened
TESA Group Pty Ltd and two related companies appealed a Federal Court decision regarding a judicial review application. The appeal concerned whether a Deputy President of the Fair Work Commission should have recused themselves from a case involving the Mining and Energy Union. The appellant argued that the Deputy President was biased due to their past parliamentary involvement, relying on extracts from Hansard (records of parliament) as evidence. The respondent contended that these extracts were inadmissible due to parliamentary privilege.
What was decided
The Full Federal Court found that the primary judge erred in admitting the Hansard extracts into evidence. The court considered whether section 16(3) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987 (Cth) applied, which relates to the admission of parliamentary proceedings as evidence. The court determined that the extracts should not have been admitted, impacting the appellant’s case for recusal and potentially affecting the outcome of the substantive appeal.
What it means for employers
Employers should be aware of the potential impact of parliamentary privilege on legal proceedings. This decision highlights the importance of carefully considering the source and admissibility of evidence, particularly when it relates to individuals with prior parliamentary involvement. Employers involved in disputes with unions or facing judicial review applications need to understand how this principle might affect their case.
What it means for employees
Employees pursuing claims against employers should be mindful that evidence related to a decision-maker's past actions, especially those involving parliamentary proceedings, may be subject to limitations due to parliamentary privilege. This ruling underscores the importance of ensuring any evidence presented is legally admissible and relevant to the case.
Want this applied to your situation?
Reading the decision is free. FairWork Mate goes further — it reads the full case library and applies precedents like this one to your specific facts, citing the cases as it reasons. General information, not a guaranteed outcome or legal advice.
Every statement above is drawn from the published decision. Read the original here:
https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/full/2026/2026fcafc0086Want more cases like this?
FairWork Mate tracks Fair Work Ombudsman, Fair Work Commission and Federal Court decisions across Australia. The AI advisor answers plain-English questions grounded on the full corpus — awards cited, industry, penalty amounts and affected employee counts — with a citation to the underlying decision on every answer.
Individual case summaries on this site are free. Full-corpus advisor access is a paid product — Business Solo from $99/mo, 50% off your first 3 months for the first 100 signups.
Get notified on new Fair Work cases
Free email alerts when we publish new underpayment decisions, penalty orders, and workplace law updates.
Free forever. No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
This summary was drafted from the published decision and reviewed before publishing. It is general information, not legal advice. For your specific situation, speak to the Fair Work Ombudsman (13 13 94) or a qualified lawyer. About these summaries & corrections →