[2016] FWCFB 1501

Fair Work Act 2009_

s.604 - Appeal of decisions

Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia

Appeal against decision [2016] FWC 669 of Commissioner Bissett at Melbourne on 3 February 2016 in matter number C2015/7983 - s.596 - permission for Appellant and Respondent to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent - granted.

[1] This decision concerns applications for permission to be represented by Counsel by the Kentz (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Appellant) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) (the Respondent).

[2] The Appeal was listed for hearing subject to directions of Vice President Hatcher of 29 February 2016, which included a requirement that any 'party that wishes to apply for permission to be represented at the hearing of the appeal by a lawyer or paid agent shall file in the Commission and serve on the other party a document, not exceeding one A4 page in length, which identifies the lawyer or paid agent the subject of the application and the reasons why such permission should be granted having regard to the grounds in s.596(2) of the Fair Work Act 2009' (the Act), by 5.00 p.m. Monday, 7 March 2016. The date for the filing of an application for permission to be represented was amended by Senior Deputy President Watson on 7 March 2016 to read 5.00 p.m. Tuesday, 8 March 2016.

[3] On 7 March 2016, solicitors for the Respondent filed an application for permission to be represented at the hearing of the Appeal by Counsel. On 8 March 2016, solicitors for the Appellant filed an application for permission to be represented at the hearing of the Appeal by Counsel.

[4] By correspondence of 26 February 2016, the Respondent, in foreshadowing its application for permission for Counsel to appear advised, that the Respondent did not oppose the Appellant being legally represented. By correspondence of 8 March 2016, solicitors for the Appellant advised that the Appellant consents to the Respondent being legally represented.

[5] In circumstances where the Appeal is to be heard in Melbourne and the Appellant and its solicitors are based in Perth and solicitors for the Respondent are based in Brisbane, the Full Bench is of the view that the applications for permission to be represented by Counsel should be determined in advance of the hearing.

[6] Having regard to the nature and legal complexity of the Appeal, we are satisfied that representation by Counsel in each case would enable the Appeal to be dealt with more efficiently. In circumstances where each party would be represented by Counsel no issue of unfairness to either party arises.

[7] Accordingly, pursuant to s.596 of the Act, we grant permission for the Appellant and the Respondent to be represented by Counsel.

Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer

var _gaq = _gaq || []; _gaq.push(['_setAccount', 'UA-9592794-1']); _gaq.push(['_trackPageview']); (function() { var ga = document.createElement('script'); ga.type = 'text/javascript'; ga.async = true; ga.src = ('https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://ssl' : 'http://www') + '.google-analytics.com/ga.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(ga, s); })();