• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

2 cited instruments linked from this judgment.

Mr Spillard was employed by Patrick Stevedores Holdings Pty Ltd as a straddle crane operator. On 30 September 2008, the company summarily terminated his employment for alleged serious misconduct, described in this decision as an assault on another worker ([2]). Deputy President Hamilton found that an incident had occurred, but said it was unclear who was at fault. He could not prefer the evidence of either participant and was not satisfied by the evidence of other employees called by the company to corroborate its account ([3]).

On that evidentiary basis, the Deputy President was not satisfied that there was a valid reason for the termination. He therefore found the dismissal harsh, unjust or unreasonable ([4]). After the parties failed to agree on a remedy, he decided reinstatement was inappropriate and awarded an amount of money instead ([1]).

Mr Spillard appealed, focusing on the refusal to reinstate him. At the Full Bench hearing, his representative conceded that because an appeal would be by way of rehearing, the Bench could revisit all issues, including the valid-reason finding ([8]). The Full Bench considered that two questions raised public-interest concerns: whether the Deputy President's approach to the evidence and valid reason was erroneous, and whether workplace-behaviour concerns justified refusing reinstatement after a finding that there was no valid reason ([9]).

The parties had addressed only reinstatement at the hearing. They had not had an opportunity to make submissions on whether there was a valid reason for the termination. The Full Bench therefore granted leave and ordered the appeal to be listed for a further hearing, so that the parties could address that issue ([9]-[11]). The decision does not disclose the result of that later hearing.

Why the court decided this way

The Full Bench's central task was to decide whether to permit the appeal and how it should proceed, not to resolve the underlying dismissal dispute. It identified the statutory framework in s.20(1) and s.120(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996. Section 20(1) required leave for a Full Bench appeal. Section 120(2) required leave where, in the Full Bench's opinion, the matter was sufficiently important that leave should be granted in the public interest ([6]).

The decision also summarised conventional considerations used in deciding whether to grant leave. These included whether the decision was attended by sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration and whether substantial injustice might result if leave were refused. The Full Bench cautioned that these considerations were not rigid limits on the discretion. It quoted the formulation that they are examples of circumstances that will usually justify leave, while adding that leave will rarely be appropriate without an arguable case of appealable error ([6], quoting Wan v AIRC and referring to Turville v Commonwealth of Australia).

The Bench expressly relied on public interest. It identified two aspects of the case that, in its view, warranted a grant. First, it considered the question of whether a decision-maker could find no valid reason because the evidence was insufficient to decide, on the balance of probabilities, whether the alleged conduct occurred. Secondly, it identified the question of whether the Deputy President erred by not reinstating Mr Spillard because of concerns about his workplace behaviour ([9]). These were framed as issues requiring consideration, not answers the Bench had already reached.

The rehearing point shaped the next step. The decision cited Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission for the proposition that an appeal, once leave is granted, proceeds by way of rehearing ([7]). Mr Spillard's representative accepted that the Full Bench could consequently revisit all issues, not only the remedy ([8]). That meant the valid-reason question could be within the appeal even though Mr Spillard's appeal had been presented as a challenge to the refusal of reinstatement.

However, the parties had not argued that question at the hearing. The Full Bench considered it inappropriate to decide further on the identified issues without giving them an opportunity to address valid reason ([10]-[11]). It accordingly ordered a further hearing. The decision's logic is procedural fairness and orderly appellate consideration: once the scope of the rehearing included an issue not argued at the hearing, the parties needed an opportunity to make submissions before the Bench determined it.

Before and after state of the law

The decision applied the Workplace Relations Act 1996, even though the appeal was being heard by Fair Work Australia rather than the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Paragraph [5] explains that Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Fair Work (Transitional Provisions and Consequential Amendments) Act 2009 continued the Workplace Relations Act to apply to this appeal.

Before this decision, Deputy President Hamilton had found the termination harsh, unjust or unreasonable because he was not satisfied there was a valid reason, and had refused reinstatement in favour of a monetary remedy ([1], [3]-[4]). Those were the decisions under challenge. They were not displaced by a final merits ruling in this Full Bench decision.

After this decision, leave to appeal had been granted and the matter was to be relisted. The Full Bench had not yet decided whether the evidence supported a valid reason, whether the first-instance decision involved appealable error, or whether reinstatement was appropriate. The decision thus did not establish a final rule on how a decision-maker must resolve conflicting evidence in a dismissal case. It identified that question as one of public importance for the appeal to address ([9]).

Nor does the decision state that workplace-behaviour concerns either necessarily justify or cannot justify refusing reinstatement. It identifies that as a question raised by the appeal ([9]). The legal effect of the decision is therefore procedural and case-specific: it grants leave because of the identified public-interest questions and arranges a further hearing. The sources supplied do not establish what the Full Bench decided after the relisting or how later courts treated this decision.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Paragraph [6] sets out the leave framework. It states that a Full Bench must grant leave if the matter is sufficiently important in the public interest. It then describes other conventional considerations, including whether the decision warrants reconsideration and whether refusing leave may cause substantial injustice. In plain English, the statutory public-interest test was the basis on which this Bench granted leave, while the other considerations formed part of the general framework it summarised.

Paragraph [7] states: “If leave to appeal is granted the appeal proceeds by way of rehearing.” In plain English, the appeal is not necessarily limited to reviewing only the particular remedy challenged. The Bench may reconsider relevant issues within the appeal, subject to the way the matter is properly heard. Paragraph [8] applies that proposition to this case: Mr Spillard's representative accepted that the valid-reason finding could also be revisited.

Paragraph [9] is the core explanation for the grant. The Full Bench identifies two issues as attracting the public interest. One concerns the evidentiary basis for finding no valid reason where the evidence did not enable a finding on the balance of probabilities. The other concerns the refusal to reinstate despite the no-valid-reason finding, in light of concerns about Mr Spillard's workplace behaviour. In plain English, the Bench regarded both the evidentiary reasoning and the relationship between workplace conduct and remedy as important questions to be considered on appeal. It did not answer either question there.

Paragraph [10] makes clear that the Full Bench would not deal further with the identified issues at that stage because the matter was to be relisted. Paragraph [11] explains why: the hearing had dealt only with reinstatement, and the parties had not been given a chance to address valid reason. The direction that a notice of listing would issue in due course is an order for a further hearing, not a final outcome on the appeal.

The final sentence of paragraph [11] states: “As presently advised, we do not see a need to go beyond the evidence that was adduced before his Honour.” In plain English, the Bench's provisional view was that it could consider the appeal using the evidence already given to the Deputy President. The phrase “as presently advised” signals that this was not a final evidentiary ruling.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to an appeal with a similar procedural posture: a first-instance employment decision has resolved a dismissal claim and remedy, an appeal requires leave, and the proposed appeal raises issues the Full Bench considers to be of public importance. Its paragraphs [6] and [9] show how this Bench connected the statutory leave test to the particular questions raised.

It is also relevant where an appeal proceeds by rehearing and the appellant challenges one aspect of the original outcome, but the rehearing may encompass another issue. Here, the stated challenge concerned the refusal of reinstatement, but the Full Bench accepted that the valid-reason finding could be revisited too ([8]). The decision illustrates the importance of identifying which issues may be considered on a rehearing and whether the parties have had a chance to address them.

A further comparable situation is one in which a Full Bench identifies a material issue that was not argued at the hearing before it. The response here was to relist the appeal rather than decide the issue without submissions ([10]-[11]). The decision does not establish that every unargued issue must result in a relisting. It records what the Full Bench did in this case, given the scope of the hearing and the proposed consideration of valid reason.

The decision should not be read, on the material supplied, as deciding the substantive merits of misconduct allegations, the reliability of witness evidence, the applicable standard of proof in all dismissal matters, or the criteria for reinstatement. Those substantive matters remained for the later hearing.

How later courts have treated it

The judgment supplied here does not report any later judicial or tribunal treatment of this decision. It also does not provide a later decision resolving the relisted appeal. Accordingly, the subsequent treatment of [2009] FWAFB 1223 cannot be established from this source alone.

The authorities it does mention are earlier authorities, not later treatment of this decision. In paragraph [6], the Full Bench refers to Wan v AIRC [2001] FCA 1803 and Turville v Commonwealth of Australia [2008] AIRCFB 673 in describing leave-to-appeal considerations. In paragraph [7], it refers to Coal and Allied Operations Pty Ltd v Australian Industrial Relations Commission [2000] HCA 47 for the rehearing proposition. The text identifies their role in this decision but does not provide a history of how later courts treated the Spillard decision itself.

For a complete subsequent-treatment account, the relevant later judgments or an authorised citator history would need to be examined. No such material is included in the judgment text provided, so it would be unsafe to infer that the decision was followed, distinguished, approved, or otherwise treated in any particular way.

Still-open questions

The main open question was whether the Deputy President erred in concluding there was no valid reason because he could not determine on the balance of probabilities whether Mr Spillard committed the alleged assault. The Full Bench specifically identified this issue but did not answer it ([9]-[11]).

The second open question was whether the Deputy President erred in refusing reinstatement because of concerns about Mr Spillard's workplace behaviour, after finding that there was no valid reason for termination ([9]). The judgment records this as an issue for the appeal, not a settled proposition.

Other matters remained open because the appeal had not been determined. The supplied text does not state what submissions the parties made at the later hearing, whether the Full Bench received further evidence, or what ultimate order it made. It also does not say whether the Full Bench later considered the existing evidence sufficient to resolve the valid-reason issue.

The decision's narrow but important procedural point is that leave was granted on public-interest grounds, and the hearing was to continue after the parties had an opportunity to address the valid-reason issue. Any conclusion about the ultimate dismissal claim or remedy would require the later decision and cannot be drawn from this decision alone.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on this, relying on it, or using any draft, have it checked by a qualified Australian lawyer.