Fair Work Commission|2025-07-15

Rebecca Callow v [2025] FWC 2031 (15 July 2025)

s.394 - Unfair dismissal.

Application for unfair dismissal remedy - Applicant organised fundraiser for ill colleague - fundraiser for the sale of work shirts authorised by Mine management - management guidance not provided ; email in relation to the fundraiser released employee email addresses Applicant carbon copied and not blind carbon copied the personal employee email addresses - dump truck operator established fundraiser - terminated for 'serious misconduct' over fundraiser email - alleged breach of privacy and confidentiality policies - comparatively different treatment of Applicant to other more senior managers; same conduct/breach more sensitive information released - lack of guidance and training from Employer on policies - no valid reason - dismissal harsh, unjust and unreasonable - reinstatement Ordered.

[1] Mrs Rebecca Callow (the Applicant/the Employee) made an application to the Fair Work Commission (the Commission) pursuant to section 394 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) (the Act) for a remedy in respect of her alleged unfair dismissal by M People (QLD) Pty Ltd **(**MacKellar/the Respondent/the Employer). The Applicant worked at the Carmichael Mine (the Mine) as a dump truck operator. The Applicant's employment was covered by the M People Queensland Enterprise Agreement 2022.[1]

[2] The dismissal relates to a fundraiser initiated by the Applicant, to assist an employee at the Mine who had been diagnosed with advanced cancer. The fundraiser at the Mine was to be organised by the Applicant with the assistance of Mr Mick Schafferius, the onsite Project Manager, on behalf of the Employer. The fundraiser involved the sale of work shirts. Depending on the colour of the shirt purchased, the proceeds from the sale were to either go directly to their ill colleague to assist with his treatment, or to one of the two nominated charities.

[3] Mrs Callow was notified of her dismissal by the Employer's Letter of Termination, signed by Mr James Cann, HR Business Partner - Carmichael Coal Mine Project (CCMP). The reason for the termination of employment was for 'serious misconduct', on the basis that the Applicant had allegedly breached the Employer's Privacy Policy, the Confidentiality Agreement, and the Employment Agreement. The Respondent stated in the Termination Letter that the Applicant had "sent an email regarding MacKellar's Work Shirt Fundraiser from your personal email account ... to CCMP employee's personal email accounts. The content of the email and the disclosure of personal email addresses was not authorized."

[4] The Termination Letter stated that the Applicant had "knowingly disregarded instructions to refrain from obtaining employee information, leading to a significant breach of privacy. Despite being directed not to obtain or disseminate this information on 17 October 2024 by Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), you chose to disregard that instruction and proceed otherwise." The Employer, stated that this conduct had caused "reputational harm and complaints to the Company." In sending the email, the Applicant had carbon copied (cc'd) the email addresses and disclosed some 850 personal email addresses of Mine employees and employees of contractors.

[5] The Applicant denied that she had received that instruction from Mr Schafferius. She stated that it had become necessary to inform employees of the next details of the fundraiser. She stated that she had endeavoured to get guidance from Mr Schafferius but after his initial involvement, he then failed to respond to her emails. The Applicant stated that her inclusion of the email addresses by carbon copy (cc) was a mistake. She apologised and stated that when she typed in all of the email addresses, she had intended to blind carbon copy (bcc) them. The Applicant explained that she did not regularly use email, did not use it at all in her work duties, and had not been trained in its use. The Applicant stated that she needed to send the information in the email as the workforce had only received preliminary fundraiser information. She took into account the cancer prognosis of her seriously ill colleague, in addition, she wanted to facilitate the employees ordering their shirts to finalise the sales.

[6] It was emphasised on behalf of the Applicant that there was no evidence that Mr Schafferius had communicated to her that she was not to send the email or use employee email addresses. Further, that at this time she considered it was critical to progress the fundraiser, and Mr Schafferius had not responded to her emails to confirm the next steps for the fundraiser. Mr Schafferius stated he had advised the Applicant against the use of emails in a prior conversation. The Applicant refuted this. She stated he had not given instructions to her to refrain from sending the fundraiser email or refrain from using employee email addresses.

[7] The investigation regarding the Applicant sending the email was conducted by Mr Cann (the new HR Business Partner). He was also the manager who signed the Letter of Termination. Mr Schafferius, the Employer's Project Manager, had been the company representative who had held the initial discussions with the Applicant about the fundraiser. He had approved the company fundraiser as evidenced by his communication to the Applicant that the company had sourced the work shirts for the fundraiser and approved the sale of the work shirts to wear at the Mine.

[8] The Respondent alleged by reference to stated policy extracts, that the Applicant had breached particular company policies in sending the fundraising email and presenting employees' personal email addresses.

[9] The Applicant submitted that when she had conducted a company approved work fundraiser at the Mine in 2022, the Employer had assisted with direct payroll deductions for the purchase of the shirts. However, she stated she was advised by Mr Schafferius that 'Payroll' had said this could not be done in relation to this fundraiser due to the Christmas period. The Applicant stated that she was then under pressure to release the fundraiser information to the Mine employees to enable the ordering and purchase of the work shirts. She said to enable this, she requested the email address list from an administrative officer at the Mine. She stated that she individually typed each of the approximately 850 email addresses into her email and set up a digital platform at her own expense ($719) to process the shirt orders. By establishing this payment platform, the Applicant also incurred a small fee for the sale of each work shirt (approximately $600 in total). She had not recorded these expenses she incurred, for reimbursement from the Mine.

[10] It was also argued on behalf of the Applicant that she had been treated differently in being dismissed. The Respondent did not provide the evidence comparing the treatment of other more senior employees, who remained employed after being engaged in similar conduct in exposing employees' personal email addresses. Further, some of those emails had included the release of more sensitive information than the Applicant's email. It was set out that the Respondent had not taken sufficient measures to ensure the confidentiality of the employee email addresses and the Applicant had not received training in relation to the company policies, or the use of the email addresses.

[11] In arguing that the dismissal was unfair, the Union also highlighted on behalf of the Applicant, that the Employer in terminating the Applicant's employment, relied on prior disciplinary matters that were not included in the Show Cause Letter or raised with the Applicant for her response as part of the dismissal process.

[12] The Applicant sought reinstatement, lost wages, and continuity of service for the period from her dismissal to the date of reinstatement. She was paid 3 weeks wages in lieu of notice. The Applicant stated that she was 36 years of age at the time of the termination, and that she had expected to continue her employment with the Respondent for at least another 10 years. The Applicant's husband was employed at the same Mine site. At the time of the Hearing, it was submitted that the Applicant had commenced employment at another mine site. In the new role she earned less; $2,276.40 per week compared to her prior earnings of $2,3874.44 with the Respondent. In addition, the Applicant's new job required her to drive from Townsville to Moranbah, approximately 7.5 hours each way, at her own expense. When she was employed with the Respondent, she received complimentary flights to and from Townsville and the mining site. In consideration of the alleged unfair dismissal, it was argued on behalf of the Applicant, that the appropriate compensation would be an amount that exceeds the statutory cap of 26 weeks in section 392(5) of the Act. However, the Applicant submitted the appropriate amount of compensation that she should receive (in the alternative) is the equivalent of 26 weeks of wages, at the Applicant's full rate of pay before termination.

[13] It was stated on behalf of the Applicant that even if a valid reason was confirmed that the termination of employment was a disproportionate response and was harsh, unjust and unreasonable. That the process had been procedurally unfair. Mrs Callow alleged that she made a mistake when under time pressure and was acting in good faith in support of another employee. Further it was stated that the email addresses are accessible on site, and that no training or explanation had been provided by the Employer on the company policies relied on (either upon her engagement or since).

[14] At the request of the Parties, the matter was heard in person in Brisbane. A Digital Hearing Book (DHB), including all of the written submissions and witness statements, was used by the Parties at the Hearing. The Respondent at the Hearing also tendered a further document, the Employee Handbook.[2] This document was relied on by the Employer for the termination, but it was not included in the Show Cause Letter for the Applicant's response.

[15] Given some of the documents referred to, included a range of personal email addresses, Counsel for the Respondent sought an Order suppressing the email addresses from public release or publication in anyway. The Confidentiality/Suppression Order was granted.[3]

[16] The relevant legislative provisions of the Act to be addressed were included in the Directions. Those provisions are repeated below for convenience:

[17] Section 387 of the Act provides that, in considering whether it is satisfied that a dismissal was harsh, unjust or unreasonable, the Commission must take into account:

(a) whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees); and

(b) whether the person was notified of that reason; and

(c) whether the person was given an opportunity to respond to any reason related to the capacity or conduct of the person; and

(d) any unreasonable refusal by the employer to allow the person to have a support person present to assist at any discussions relating to dismissal; and

(e) if the dismissal related to unsatisfactory performance by the person - whether the person had been warned about that unsatisfactory performance before the dismissal; and

(f) the degree to which the size of the employer's enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(g) the degree to which the absence of dedicated human resource management specialists or expertise in the enterprise would be likely to impact on the procedures followed in effecting the dismissal; and

(h) any other matters that the FWC considers relevant.

[18] Each of these criteria in section 387, are later assessed according to the factual circumstances of this matter.

[19] Section 390 of the Act provides that the Commission may provide a remedy if the Commission is satisfied that the Applicant was protected from unfair dismissal at the time of being dismissed and the Applicant has been unfairly dismissed.

[20] Furthermore, section 392 of the Act, as included on the Directions, provides:

(1) An order for the payment of compensation to a person must be an order that the person's employer at the time of the dismissal pay compensation to the person in lieu of reinstatement.

(2) In determining an amount for the purposes of an order under subsection (1), the FWC must take into account all the circumstances of the case including:

(a) the effect of the order on the viability of the employer's enterprise; and

(b) the length of the person's service with the employer; and

(c) the remuneration that the person would have received, or would have been likely to receive, if the person had not been dismissed; and

(d) the efforts of the person (if any) to mitigate the loss suffered by the person because of the dismissal; and

(e) the amount of any remuneration earned by the person from employment or other work during the period between the dismissal and the making of the order for compensation; and

(f) the amount of any income reasonably likely to be so earned by the person during the period between the making of the order for compensation and the actual compensation; and

(g) any other matter that the FWC considers relevant.

[21] Serious misconduct is defined in Fair Work Regulation 2009 at 1.07 as follows:

(1) For the purposes of the definition of serious misconduct in section 12 of the Act, serious misconduct has its ordinary meaning.

(2) For the purposes of subregulation (1), conduct that is serious misconduct includes the following conduct of an employee:

(a) wilful or deliberate behaviour that is inconsistent with the continuation of the contract of employment;

(b) conduct that causes serious and imminent risk to:

(i) the health or safety of a person; or

(ii) the reputation, viability or profitability of the employer's business;

(c) engaging in theft, fraud, assault or sexual harassment in the course of the employee's employment;

(d) being intoxicated at work;

(e) refusing to carry out a lawful and reasonable instruction that is consistent with the employee's contract of employment.

(3) Paragraphs (2)(c) to (e) do not apply if the employee is able to show that, in the circumstances, the conduct engaged in by the employee was not conduct that made employment in the period of notice unreasonable.

[22] Section 382 of the Act provides that a person is protected from unfair dismissal if, at the time of being dismissed:

(a) the person is an employee who has completed a period of employment with his or her employer of at least the minimum employment period; and

(b) one or more of the following apply:

(i) a modern award covers the person;

(ii) an enterprise agreement applies to the person in relation to the employment;

(iii) the sum of the person's annual rate of earnings, and such other amounts (if any) worked out in relation to the person in accordance with the regulations, is less than the high income threshold.

[23] In accordance with Section 396 of the Act, it must be determined:

(a) whether the application was made within the period required in subsection 394(2);

(b) whether the person was protected from unfair dismissal;

(c) whether the dismissal was consistent with the Small Business Fair Dismissal Code; and

(d) whether the dismissal was a case of genuine redundancy.

[24] The Parties agreed that the application was filed in the Commission, within the statutory 21-day period. It was agreed that the Respondent was not a small business employer, and that this dismissal was a termination of employment and not a case of genuine redundancy.[4] I am satisfied that the Applicant was a person protected by the unfair dismissal provisions.

[25] Mrs Callow was represented at the Hearing by Mr Chris Newman, Senior Legal Officer of the Mining and Energy Union (the Union). Prior to the Hearing, the Applicant was represented by Mr Aidan Nash, Senior Legal Officer of the Union. Both Union Officers are registered solicitors on the Queensland register of solicitors. At the Hearing, Mrs Callow was the only witness in her case and gave evidence and was cross-examined by the Respondent. She had two witness statements tendered (initial and reply).

[26] M People was represented by Mr Troy Spence of Counsel, briefed for the Hearing. Prior to this a solicitor of MinterEllison, the then lawyers for the Respondent, sought permission pursuant to section 596 to appear on behalf of the Respondent. At the Conference/Mention, the original solicitor provided submissions to appear on behalf of the Respondent in these proceedings.

[27] Having considered the Parties submissions, legal representation was granted for the Respondent's representative pursuant to section 596(2)(a) of the Act. A Form F54 - Notice of Representative Ceasing to Act was then filed in relation to the original solicitors.

[28] Mr Ross Wakeford, Senior Employment Relations Advisor of Drayton's Workplace Consulting, filed a Form F53 - Notice of Representative Commencing to Act which gave notice that Mr Troy Spence, of Counsel, would be the Respondent's legal representative instructed by Drayton's Workplace Consulting (as Paid Agents). On that same day, correspondence was sent to the Parties outlining that as the permission pursuant to section 596 had been granted, it would also apply to the Respondent's new legal representative. Counsel was granted permission to appear (given the earlier permission for legal representation); this was in accordance with the Full Bench's decision of NSW Bar Association v McAuliffe.[5]

[29] The Respondent's witnesses were Mr Michael (Mick) Schafferius (Project Manager) and Mr James Cann (HR Business Partner). These witnesses provided evidence at the Hearing and were cross-examined by the Union.

[30] The Applicant was employed by the Respondent from 29 June 2021 as a plant operator at the Carmichael Mine. The Respondent holds a contract with Bravus Mining and Resources to operate the Mine, which is located in the Galilee Basin in Regional Queensland.[6] Mr Schafferius was responsible for the $9 million Mine project.

[31] The Applicant proposed to Mr Schafferius that she wished to organise a fundraiser to support an ill work colleague who was diagnosed with cancer.[7] The Applicant had experience with fundraising,[8] including conducting a similar fundraiser at the Mine in 2022. The aim was to raise money for their ill colleague and for charity, with the approval and assistance of the Respondent.[9] The Respondent acknowledged their support for the fundraiser in the initial communications of Mr Schafferius with the Applicant. The Respondent sourced the shirts to sell through the fundraiser, which would include the Mackellar logo and the employee's name. However, of importance, there was a factual dispute over whether the Applicant had sought further guidance from the Respondent for the fundraiser communication to employees. This is an important issue as the Applicant set out that Mr Schafferius did not respond to her further emails to guide the progress of the fundraiser. She also stated that he provided no statement telling her not to send the fundraiser email.

[32] The Parties agreed that the Applicant asked Mr Schafferius about an email to be sent to the Respondent's employees to promote the fundraiser.[10] The Applicant submitted that she viewed this would either be from herself or from the Respondent. The Applicant stated that she did not receive a response to this request.[11] Mr Schafferius submitted that he presumed the Applicant was requesting an email be sent to the work email addresses of the Respondent's employees, given that the Applicant did not have access to the employees' personal email addresses. Mr Schafferius submitted that when he received the request from the Applicant, he could not immediately approve it as he had to seek authorisation first.[12] At no stage did he inform the Applicant of a response or that a further period of time was required to seek approval. It was clarified that a number of employees used their personal email addresses for work correspondence.

The Email to Employees using their Email Addresses

[33] The Applicant's evidence was that she sought by email, confirmation from Mr Schafferius on how to progress the fundraiser. These attempts by the Applicant are set out later. The Applicant stated that she received no response or guidance and that the time to sell the shirts based on her understanding of her colleague's illness was increasingly reducing. Accordingly, having received no response from Mr Schafferius, at the relevant time, the Applicant had obtained by request, an email distribution list from a Site Administrator of the Respondent.[13] Most employees or the employees of contractors, do not have work email addresses but use their personal email address. The Applicant was provided a distribution list of approximately 850 email addresses of the Respondent's employees and contractors at the Mine.[14] It was submitted that the Applicant did not 'access' the emails as alleged as they were given to her on request.

[34] A day after receiving the emails, the Applicant sent an email to the Respondent's approximately 850 employees, including those of their contractors (the recipients).[15] The email used the platform that she had set up to capture an employee's order for a shirt and their payment. The email contained information about the fundraiser and a link to purchase the work shirts. The Applicant submitted that although she intended to 'bcc' all recipients, she accidentally typed the email addresses into the 'cc' field, making all email addresses visible to the recipients. The Respondent submitted that this action was an unauthorised usage of confidential information, which included a link to an unauthorised fundraising platform, and provided the Applicant's personal bank details to receive the fundraising proceeds.[16] Further, the Respondent stated this email misrepresented the Respondent's involvement in the fundraiser (including to wrongly state that the Respondent did not support payroll deductions) and made visible the email addresses of all recipients.[17] The Respondent submitted this action was a breach of privacy for its employees and contractors and exposed the Respondent to potential liability under the Australian Privacy Principles.[18] The Respondent also submitted that its reputation and relationships with external contracting agencies were put at risk by the Applicant's actions.

[35] It was submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the Respondent's representative, Mr Schafferius, had initially supported the fundraiser, telling the Applicant that the shirts had been confirmed. However, he ignored the Applicant's emailed requests for support at the critical time, leaving her to have to progress the administration of the fundraiser. The Applicant's email to Mr Schafferius, (as set out under valid reason) establishes the Applicant's intentions for an email to be sent to employees, as follows:

"Also, would there be a way that I could send the poster, order form & deduction form via email to everyone?

(Then they can print, scan and send back to me that way) - I'm thinking of all the people that are "off" with sick / annual leave. Happy to send to you first for approval of course."

[36] The Applicant received no response to this email. She also sent a further email, which Mr Schafferius did not respond to. The emails between the Applicant and Mr Schafferius in relation to the fundraiser are further referred to in the assessment of valid reason.

[37] The Applicant's email sent to all employees whereby the employees' email addresses were visible in the 'cc' field, is set out below. Mr Schafferius had not responded with any relevant information to the Applicant in the interim week. Accordingly, the Applicant sent the below email:

My name is Bec Callow, and I am the organiser of the Mackellar Work shirt Fundraiser. I'm sending this out to everyone to show our support and to raise much needed funds for our chosen charities and to support [redacted], who is going through [redacted] Cancer.

Unlike last time, I am doing things a bit differently this year as we are NOT DEDUCTING THIS FROM YOUR PAY, you will need to pay for your shirts yourself. In saying that though, I have built an online ordering platform and have created a payment gateway to accommodate most payment types, and to simplify the ordering process for everyone, whilst keeping up with the times! ...

> Online Kiosk (Bec's phone only - great for those paying cash!)

> Via an App - ask Bec to set up your own kiosk on your phone!

> Via a QR Code - ask Bec for this! (also attached to this email!)

> Emailed / Text Message / Facebook / Messenger / WhatsApp / Printed

> Square Card Reader (B/D Prod/Mait Crews only +OTers)

> Square Tap to Pay (on Bec's phone) (B/D Prod/Mait Crews only +OTers)

A massive thanks to Mackellar for sponsoring the purchase of the shirts and for covering the embroidery costs. Your generosity is greatly appreciated, and we thank you for your ongoing support.

If you have any dramas with the order form, receiving your donation receipt or any of the payment types, or need help with anything, I am happy to assist! Please don't hesitate to text BEC CALLOW on [redacted] or via email: [redacted]

I hope everyone can get behind me and help support [redacted] and the chosen charities. (National Breast Cancer Foundation and Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia) With your support and donation/s, we can make a difference! You are awesome and we are all grateful for your contribution towards our Work shirt fundraiser. I can't wait to see everyone in their new flash shirts! Let's make this go bigger than Ben Hurr!!!

I have also included the online donation page for [redacted] that includes an online card if anyone wants to donate to this as well. I've also included the poster for this as an attachment. There is a virtual card you can sign and leave a message for [redacted].

[38] The Applicant's actions in sending this email were later subject to a disciplinary investigation. The Applicant in her prior email referred to had, put Mr Schafferius on notice that she considered that an email needed to be sent to all employees about the fundraiser. He did not follow up or respond to her in relation to this matter.

[39] Mr Cann, HR Business Partner submitted that on the next morning, after the Applicant had sent the email to employees that he, and other members of the Respondent's Human Resources, received some employees' emailed expressions of concern about the use of their personal email addresses. They were concerned their email addresses were visible in the email that the Applicant had sent. Mr Cann provided redacted samples of these emails in his witness statement. On request Mr Newman of the Union confirmed the unredacted copies of these complaint emails received by the Respondent. For example, a blasting company sent the below email:

"Majority of our team have received the below email to their personal email address.

Can you investigate this email and provide feedback. Looking to decipher if the email is a scam and how our personal email addresses were available to the sender.

I understand that this may have been done for a good cause, my team have some concerns over the security of their personal information. I would like to provide them with feedback sooner rather than later.

[40] Another example is from an employee who stated:

"I wish to note that this email, whilst for a good cause is very distressing to my wife and I. I work with the people listed in the email, they are not my friends are now privy to my personal email which is the first step in identity theft. I am also extremely concerned that suppliers that I have nothing to do with also now have my personal email. This email is linked to my social media, financial accounts, payroll, Dept of Transport, local council and the list goes on.

My other concern is that this information has come from a payroll/HR data base. What other information has Ms Callow been privy to?

Is Mackellar going support me if the worst happens with identity theft etc? What happens if this email list is added to 'suppliers' lists? What happens if a colleague decides to email me in a not appropriate manner?

This is also particularly disturbing in that I have only just signed and agreed to the Privacy Policy? Does this now not apply? Is this a free for all now? Can photographs now be posted on social media of incidents on the mine site.

Can I now go in to the office and ask to send out a mass email to all staff, contractors and suppliers for a 'good cause'?

Many personal emails are also share accounts between families and spouses, so it not just me or my colleagues affected in this type of incident.

Are you aware of how easy it would be for me with minimal IT skills to hack a colleagues facebook account just with an email address?

I am trying to express my concern and displeasure as civilly and politely as possible, but believe my personal privacy has been breached and my human right as a right to privacy has been breached.

I would like to see initially, strategies forwarded to all people on the email list on measures that can be taken to protect the ourselves. What will support from Mackellar look like?

I would like this to be recorded as a formal complaint and would hope their would be no retribution towards me and my employment because I am making a complaint.

[41] Mr Cann submitted that due to these complaints, he forwarded the Applicant's email to Mr Alan White, General Manager - HR & HSET, who asked that he make inquiries to determine how the Applicant obtained the employees and contractor email addresses.[19]

[42] The Applicant submitted that following her email sent to employees, she received an email that appeared to have been sent to all employees from Mr Cann, it stated:

As you may know, we received a request to support a fundraiser for Mackellar work shirts recently, this initiative was to support one of our workers who is battling cancer as well as other like-minded initiatives. It has come to our attention that, unfortunately personal email addresses may have been inadvertently released last night whilst launching this initiative.

Be aware M People is taking this matter very seriously and will investigate this potential breach.

We apologise for any inconvenience, and will provide a further update once we determine what has occurred."[20]

[43] Five days later, the Applicant received a call from Mr Cann telling her that she was being stood down pending an investigation into misconduct.

[45] On 13 November 2024, the Applicant had a phone meeting with Mr Cann, Mr Leigh Smith (Production Superintendent of the Respondent) and Mr Troy Jeppesen (the Applicant's support person). At that time, the Applicant's usual supervisor was on leave, and so her then supervisor was Mr Smith.[21] During the meeting, the Applicant was provided a Show Cause Letter. The Show Cause Letter set out as follows:[22]

We are writing to bring your attention certain matters regarding your conduct that require an explanation. On Wednesday 6 November at approximately 10:12pm, you sent an email regarding MacKellar's Work Shirt Fundraiser from your personal email account [redacted] to CCMP employee's personal email accounts. The content of the email and the disclosure of personal email addresses was not authorized. We note that during the meeting with Leigh Smith (Production Superintendent) and James Cann (HR Business Partner), you chose to bring Troy Jeppesen as your support person.

You requested access to personal email accounts from Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), the request was denied and you proceeded to obtain the confidential information via another employee.

M People consider this behaviour to be improper conduct and very serious in nature. Specifically, this amounts to a breach of:

MacKellar's Privacy Policy - signed by you 23 May 2022
Personal information will only be disclosed with your [employee's] authorisation
MacKellar's Confidentiality Agreement - signed by you 07 June 2021
Not copy, reproduce or record any confidential information except in accordance with this agreement, in the ordinary course of their employment or the written consent of the Company
Take all necessary or appropriate steps to prevent the unauthorised use or disclosure of the Confidential Information

For these reasons, M People is considering appropriate disciplinary action, up to and including termination of your employment.

Before making a final decision, M People would like to give you the opportunity to respond to the proposed disciplinary action and present any information you consider relevant.

You are invited to provide your response in writing by 5pm Friday 15th November 2024, by email to James Cann [redacted].

This letter confirms you have been stood down from work duties pending the outcome of the show cause proceedings. Until further notice, you are required to remain at camp.

Suspension is a neutral act and the suspension period does not affect your employment-related benefits and will, in all other respects, be treated by us as normal paid working time.

You must not, without our prior permission, discuss the fact of your suspension or the fact of or the nature of the allegations against you with anyone associated with MacKellar other than our HR team and Site Management.
You will need to remain available by phone during your normal working hours to assist with any queries relating to your work or enquiries relating to the incident. The phone number we have for you is [redacted]. Please notify us immediately if this number is incorrect.

I remind you that you are required to maintain confidentiality at all times about this matter, and therefore must not discuss any part of this investigation, findings, or outcomes with any person, including any current or former employees. You can, however, discuss the matter with a professional advisor to obtain advice. Any such advisor is also required to maintain confidentiality.

Should you require any counselling support, please be reminded that you have access to our Employee Assistance Program (EAP), [redacted]. The EAP is a free and confidential service, available 24 hours a day, and can be contacted on [redacted].

[44] On 14 November 2024, the Applicant advised the Respondent that she would be represented by her Union representative, Shane Brunker. She also had Troy Jeppesen attend as her support person. On the same day, Mr Brunker, requested an extension to provide a response, citing the need for additional preparation time and that request was granted.[23]

[45] The Applicant provided a response to the Show Cause Letter on 15 November 2025.[24] The response to the Show Cause Letter was as follows: [25]

I am writing to you today in response to the Show Cause issued to myself on 13 November 2024. In that letter you have alleged that I "requested access to personal email accounts from Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), the request was denied and you proceeded to obtain the confidential information via another employee". You have alleged that this amounts to a breach of MacKellar's Privacy Policy and Confidentiality Agreement.

I fully understand the severity of this mistake and I want to express my sincerest apologies for the oversight and any distress or privacy breaches that this may have caused. However, I assure you that I did not deliberately obtain confidential information or share this information with others. I was not aware that it was a breach of privacy to obtain the email addresses, and I did not mean to share these email addresses with anyone else. I have learned from my mistake and I assure you it will never happen again.

The situation arose when I organized a fundraising initiative to support our colleague, [redacted] by offering work shirts for sale. My intent was purely to contribute positively to the team and to provide a gesture of support during a challenging time. Unfortunately, in my eagerness to coordinate the efforts, I inadvertently included personal email addresses in a group email, without gaining the correct authorisation to proceed. This was a genuine mistake. I intended to BCC all the recipients of the email but I accidentally added them to the CC box instead where they were visible. I deeply regret not checking the BCC box on the recipient list before sending.

In relation to requesting the email addresses, my initial request for this information from Mick Schafferius was not denied as alleged. I had received permission to conduct the fundraising activity from my manager. After receiving permission, I emailed Mick to ask if a group email could be sent either by the Company or by me. I did not receive a response to this request.

Not knowing how long [redacted] had to live, I felt that I needed to send the email as soon as possible, so I asked another colleague for the email addresses. At the time, I did not know that this was a breach of privacy.

I acknowledge that this was the wrong thing to do and that I should have followed up with Mick instead. I understand that by signing the privacy policy that personal information can only be disclosed with Mackellar's authorisation, and that the confidentiality agreement states that I would not copy, reproduce or record any confidential information, and to prevent the unauthorized use or disclose any of this confidential information. Unfortunately, I did not realise at the time that obtaining the email address of my workmates was a breach of privacy, I had thought that it would be okay as long as I did not share the email addresses with anyone. I have made a mistake and have realized that I breached my contract agreement.

It was an honest mistake and I am very remorseful and deeply sorry for my actions. I honestly did not mean to breach these policies as I was eager to inform people of our work shirt fundraiser, to help those in need during a time of difficulty, helping to raise much needed funds for people and the chosen charities. This will never happen again, and for the inconvenience / embarrassment of this unfortunate event, I am truly sorry and take full ownership over my honest mistake.

I take full responsibility for this error and have already taken steps to ensure that such a mistake does not happen again.

I have reviewed company protocols regarding email communications and privacy, and I am committed to adhering to all policies moving forward. Additionally, I would be more than happy to participate in any training or review sessions to further improve my understanding of the company's privacy and communication practices/ policies.

As a kind hearted employee of Mackellar, I always go out of my way to help others, and to make sure they feel appreciated, respected and valued. Prior to organizing the work shirt fundraiser, I previously ran this fundraiser (with only the pink and blue shirts) back in 2022. This was a great success and was a good marketing opportunity for Mackellar. The publicity that this fundraiser gave to our workforce, to help build up the team morale was unreal. People felt as if they belonged to something and played their part to help out charities, fundraising money, and raising awareness - all while being decked out in a pink and blue shirt that they could wear proudly to say that "I helped make a difference." This is why I wanted to take on the fundraiser again, not for the money but for the respect so I could help build up our broken team morale, to help raise funds for one of our own workers who is struggling with [redacted] cancer, and to raise awareness and to be able to support charities.

I have been working out here with Mackellar since June 2021, (over 3 ½ years) and have made friendships that will last a lifetime, and have seen this mine grow from 3 diggers to 11, from 1 dump to 5, from 10 trucks to 48, built the ROM, the CHPP and watched it grow from early developments. I have worked well over 50+ days of overtime within the 3 ½ years, and have always gone above and beyond for the company, helping out with production, ROM and sometimes helping out the maintenance department with some admin duties. It has been a pleasure watching the mine grow and thinking back to how it was when I first started. I was the first operator to bring TK10 out brand new and was the first operator to get a load from EX10. It's the little wins for me!

I am a hard worker and generally don't have sick days, unless there has been a sudden family issues / sick children / close deaths at home and I am needed to be at home for these instances. I am always reliable and honest, and will help anyone with anything at anytime.

Alongside my husband (who is a leading hand on B Crew) We have recently built our dream house, and this unfortunate incident will have a devastating effect on us and our family if I lose my job, and I regret to inform everyone that rely on us that this will absolutely shatter us, our marriage, our extended family and our children's uncertain future. I'd like to think I made an impact on people out here, and I will use this scenario as a learning curve, to try and work out the best possible way to make ends meet and to keep our heads above water. Losing my job will have huge financial consequence for us, our family and will create a bad reputation within the entire Mackellar workforce.

Our family is our number one priority and having both parents working away from our children, it is already hard enough for them and this will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Please have some compassion when thinking of the outcome, as I believe this event was just a simple mistake that could've been avoided. I have learned a valuable lesson, and it will never happen again. I can be relied on to continue to be a hardworking and honest employee with a commitment to privacy.

Once again, I apologize for my mistake of breaching the privacy and confidentiality agreements, and will not let this happen again. I'm taking responsibility for my actions and apologies to everyone affected by this. Should the opportunity arise for more fundraising endeavors within the future, I would like to offer my services and offer a helping hand if needed.

I value my role at Mackellar, and at the Carmichael Coal Mine and the opportunities I've had to contribute to our team. I am dedicated to making things right and continuing to support the organization in a responsible and professional manner. I kindly ask for your understanding and consideration in allowing me to remain in my position, as this mistake does not reflect my usual attention to detail or my commitment to upholding the values of our workplace.

Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. I am available for further discussion if needed, and I appreciate your understanding as I work to prevent similar issues from occurring in the future.

I await your response for the outcome of disciplinary action.

[46] The Termination Letter, outlined that the Applicant's employment was terminated on the basis of 'serious misconduct' as extracted:[26]

"The investigation concluded that you knowingly disregarded instructions to refrain from obtaining employee information, leading to a significant breach of privacy. Despite being directed not to obtain or disseminate this information on 17 October 2024 by Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), you chose to disregard that instruction and proceed otherwise. As a result, your actions have caused reputational harm and complaints to the Company."[27]

[47] Mr Schafferius at the time of the termination, had been employed by the Respondent, as the site Project Manager for approximately nine and a half months and had been with Mackellar Group for two and a half years. His primary responsibilities included managing site operations, liaising with clients, and ensuring project goals are met.[28] Mr Schafferius was the person that the Applicant approached to discuss the potential fundraising for the ill colleague. She had raised with him whether the Respondent would support the fundraiser by covering the cost of the shirts so that all donations received could be made directly to the charity of choice or to the ill colleague. At this time, a separate proposal had also been brought to the Board of the Respondent, for a donation to be provided directly to the unwell employee on behalf of all employees.[29] However, the Applicant's fundraiser proposal was preferred. Mr Schafferius' witness statement provided evidence about the email correspondence the Applicant had sent to him and the Applicant's subsequent email sent directly to employees. He stated that Mr Cann conducted the investigation and signed the Letter of termination of the Applicant's employment. During cross-examination Mr Schafferius stated that he did not respond to the Applicant's emails on 21 and 30 October 2024 (the latter of which was in reply to Mr Schafferius' email of 29 October 2024). Both of the Applicant's emails asked questions of Mr Schafferius in relation to the deduction forms from Payroll and if the Applicant could send a fundraising email out to all of the Respondent's employees, including those on sick and annual leave so they would be able to participate in the fundraiser (rather than if there was just forms left out on the Mine site).[30] Mr Schafferius, as the company contact for the fundraiser, did not respond to the Applicant's emails as required.

[48] Mr Cann was employed by Mackellar Group as a HR Business Partner in 2024, just prior to the Applicant's incident; and he was then seconded to the Respondent to work at the Mine.[31] Mr Cann's role includes managing employee relations matters, advising on workplace policies, overseeing disciplinary processes, and maintaining employment records.[32] He stated in his witness statement that he is familiar with Mackellar and the Respondent's policies and procedures and has access to employment records in accordance with his role.[33] Mr Cann's witness statement provided evidence about the Applicant's email, the staff complaint emails received after it ; (a sample of four complaint emails were provided), his investigation, and the Show Cause a process for the Applicant. There was inconsistency in the evidence between Mr. Cann and Mr. Schafferius regarding the involvement of the project manager in the termination of the Applicant's employment.

[49] Section 387 of the Act sets out the criteria for considering whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal and whether the termination was harsh, unjust or unreasonable.

[50] The type of conduct which may fall within the phrase 'harsh, unjust or unreasonable' was explained by the High Court of Australia in Byrne v Australian Airlines Ltd.[34] McHugh and Gummow JJ explained as follows:

"It may be that the termination is harsh but not unjust or unreasonable, unjust but not harsh or unreasonable, or unreasonable but not harsh or unjust. In many cases the concepts will overlap. Thus, the one termination of employment may be unjust because the employee was not guilty of the misconduct on which the employer acted, may be unreasonable because it was decided upon inferences which could not reasonably have been drawn from the material before the employer, and may be harsh in its consequences for the personal and economic situation of the employee or because it is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct in respect of which the employer acted."[35]

Whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the person's capacity or conduct - section 387(a)

[51] The reason for the dismissal should be "sound, defensible and well founded"[36] and should not be "capricious, fanciful, spiteful or prejudiced."[37] The question the Commission must address is whether there was a valid reason for the dismissal related to the employee's capacity or conduct (including its effect on the safety and welfare of other employees).[38]The conduct of the Applicant was assessed ;with regard to the fundraiser email to all employees.

[52] After the Show Cause Letter, Mr Cann and Mr Smith, met with the Applicant and Mr Jeppsen, the Applicant's support person. [39] In that meeting, Mr Cann and Mr Smith notified the Applicant that her employment with the Respondent was terminated.[40] A Termination Letter (dated the same day) was provided to the Applicant at the meeting. The Letter confirmed payment of her 3 week notice period and provided reasons for the Applicant's termination.[41]

[53] The extract of the Termination Letter (signed by Mr Cann, HR Business Partner) specifies the Employer's reasons for termination related to the fundraiser the Applicant email sent : [42]

"....you sent an email regarding MacKellar's Work Shirt Fundraiser from your personal email account [redacted] to CCMP employee's personal email accounts. The content of the email and the disclosure of personal email addresses was not authorized.

...you attended a show cause meeting with Leigh Smith (Production Superintendent), James Cann (HR Business Partner) you were asked to explain your actions regarding the disclosure of personal contact information of our employees and contractors.

The investigation concluded that you knowingly disregarded instructions to refrain from obtaining employee information, leading to a significant breach of privacy. Despite being directed not to obtain or disseminate this information on 17 October 2024 by Mick Schafferius (Project Manager), you chose to disregard that instruction and proceed otherwise. As a result, your actions have caused reputational harm and complaints to the Company.

After considering your response, the Company has decided to terminate your employment effective today due to serious misconduct. Specifically, your actions breached:

MacKellar's Privacy Policy (signed 23 May 2022),
MacKellar's Confidentiality Agreement (signed 07 June 2021), and
Your Employment Agreement (signed 08 July 2021)

We will make payment of three (3) weeks to you in lieu of notice in accordance with clause 32.3 of the M People Enterprise Agreement 2022. Any other entitlements owed to you will be included in your final pay.

[54] There was clearly no consideration of anything raised at the show cause meeting given that the Termination Letter had been pre-prepared and handed to the applicant at the showcase meeting. In contrast with the Show Cause Letter the Termination Letter referred to an additional breach of the Applicant's Employment Agreement. The Show Cause Letter unlike the Termination Letter, referenced parts of the two policies that had allegedly been breached.

[55] In relation to the Applicant's email as outlined in the Termination Letter, the Applicant considered that employees being able to make their work shirt orders was a time sensitive matter given that they had been alerted to the fundraiser and due to the ill health of their colleague. The following emails were sent by the Applicant and Mr Schafferius regarding the progress of the fundraiser. Mr. Schafferius failed to respond to the particular inquiries from the applicant as to how to proceed with the fundraiser communications.

[56] The Applicant sent, the first of these relevant emails, with the subject "Shirt Update?":

Just chasing up whether you got a chance to chat with Gerri from payroll about the work shirt deduction forms? Today is our last day, and we were hoping to have order forms / posters out in the crib huts this week. [Redacted] from maintenance admin said she can print them out for me if needed. I did send you the PowerPoint slides for the RTW this week, and a copy of the posters (should've been sent from Ratty's email) - could you let me know if this all good to proceed? (I need the deduction forms) and a copy of the poster -I sent this to you too! Cheers Mick.

[57] Mr Schafferius during cross-examination stated that he did not think that he responded to this email of the Applicant. .[43] There was no evidence that he responded.

[58] Mr Schafferius did email the Applicant 8 days later; with the subject "Shirts" as follows:

"Bec

Some good news we have approval to progress with the shirts.

You can start your order forms as of tonight so we can get the numbers and get the order under way.

There is one thing that we will need to do and this is from my end and that is have our procurement team get a quote as well they may get them cheaper from another supplier but they doo (sic) all the work.

[59] The next day, the Applicant replied to Mr Schafferius:

Can you send me the posters / order forms - because I had sent them through to you from Wratty's email. I didn't think to send it to me. Oops!

I can forward onto Lisa at Maintenance admin and she can print out posters / order forms etc. (She already said she could help me with that!) Then I can pick up some coloured folders so that everyone can leave them in the crib huts for me to collect.

Also, would there be a way that I could send the poster, order form & deduction form via email to everyone?

(Then they can print, scan and send back to me that way) - I'm thinking of all the people that are "off" with sick / annual leave. Happy to send to you first for approval of course.

I've just come off nightshift so am heading to bed, but I'll probably be up around lunchtime so I can come into the office then and see how you went.

[60] Mr Cann confirmed that after the Applicant's above email inquiry Mr Schafferius did not respond to her before she sent her email to employees.[44] Whilst his later evidence was that he was seeking approval. There was no communication to the Applicant, that he was engaged in that process or that there was a further response to come to her.

[61] The Applicant's Termination Letter stated that three company policies had been breached: the Privacy Policy, the Confidentiality Agreement and additionally (in the letter of termination) the Applicant's Employment Agreement. The Employment Agreement was not included in the Show Cause Letter. This denied the Applicant the ability to understand or respond to this allegation and this is discussed further below under section 387(c).

[62] The two policies (the Privacy Policy and the Confidentiality Agreement) referenced in the Show Cause Letter were remotely signed electronically by the Applicant in 2021 and 2022 (provided without associated training or explanation). In assessing the Applicant's conduct; the use of email was not part of the Applicant's core work duties. In relation to the matters under consideration,, the Applicant's Witness Statement stated that these two policies were not explained to her:

"11. Prior to my employment, I was also provided with a Confidentiality Agreement to sign. I have been provided with a copy of this after my dismissal which indicates that I signed this on 7 June 2021. I otherwise have no recollection of signing this document and I do not recall this document ever being explained to me.

12. I am aware that the Respondent has a Code of Conduct. I do not specifically remember if and when I was provided with a copy of this prior to my dismissal but I was aware of its existence. I have never had the Code of Conduct explained to me nor have I received any training in relation to the code of conduct.

13. I was never told during my employment that email addresses were confidential or personal information that should not be accessed or shared."

[63] On the unchallenged evidence of the Applicant, there was a lack of training on the policies, in relation to the events that led to the termination. The Applicant's duties did not require her to use email, and the Respondent did not train her in relation to email usage. However, the Applicant before she sent the email had raised the use of email to the Respondent (via Mr Schafferius), and at this point if there were concerns regarding confidentiality or personal information in relation to the use of email, this is when the policies could have been explained clearly to the Applicant. However, Mr Schafferius remained silent, did not respond, and therefore information was not explained to the Applicant.

[64] The fact that the Applicant was required to sign the policies (on commencement) with no associated explanation or refresher training in the ensuing period significantly diminishes the Respondent's ability to rely on these policies as reasons for the termination in relation to the facts of this matter.

[65] As above, the Show Cause Letter stated that the Privacy Policy and the Confidentiality Agreement had been breached by the Applicant. Under both policies, the Show Cause Letter included an extracted statement from each that the Respondent considered that the Applicant had breached. The extracts are set out below.

[66] In relation to the Privacy Policy, the Show Cause Letter states "Personal information will only be disclosed with your [employee's] authorisation". In relation to this section extracted in the Show Cause Letter, this obligation relates to MacKellar's duties as underlined below:

MacKellar will only collect personal information that is reasonably necessary for its business functions and activities, and as permitted by law.

MacKellar respects the privacy of our employees, contractors, and suppliers.

Personal information will be collected lawfully, in a manner which is not intrusive
Personal information will only be used for the specific purposes for which we collected it
Personal information will only be disclosed with your authorisation and as necessary to prevent a threat to health and safety, as required by law, or to assist authorities
Reasonable steps will be taken to protect personal information collected from misuse, interference, loss, and unauthorised access
Reasonable steps will be taken to securely destroy or de-identify personal information where it is no longer needed for the purpose for which it was collected" (emphasis added)

[67] It is noted that the Privacy Policy referred to is part of the Code of Conduct and is not a separate document. Further, the Privacy Policy extract relied on by the Employer in the Show Cause Letter, relates to Mackellar's commitment to employees rather than to an employee's obligation. It is difficult to reconcile how the Applicant breached this extract of the Privacy Policy where this duty does not clearly apply to employees. This is particularly so where the Applicant had sought guidance regarding the fundraiser email to employees. Mr Schafferius did not respond; he failed to meet his responsibility to manage the Employer's commitment to employee privacy. Mr Schafferius stated in evidence he had no interest in the fundraiser, resulting in his breach of duty under the privacy policy.

[68] In relation to the Confidentiality Agreement, the Show Cause Letter recorded the following sections of the Confidentiality Agreement: "Not copy, reproduce or record any confidential information except in accordance with this agreement, in the ordinary course of their employment or the written consent of the Company" and "Take all necessary or appropriate steps to prevent the unauthorised use or disclosure of the Confidential Information". Those particular extracts as they appear in the Confidentiality Agreement are underlined below:

1. 1 In consideration of the Employee receiving Confidential Information and obtaining the benefits as an employee of the Company, the Employee must:

(a) keep the Confidential Information strictly confidential;

(b) not divulge the Confidential Information to any person other than as permitted by the terms of this agreement or as directed in writing by the Company;

(c) take all necessary or appropriate steps to prevent the unauthorised use or disclosure of the Confidential Information;

(d) notify the Company immediately in writing if the Employee becomes aware of any unauthorised disclosure of the Confidential Information or any breach of this agreement, whether by another employee, contractor, office or professional advisor of the Company or a third party, and take all steps required to prevent that breach;

(e) not copy, reproduce or record any Confidential Information except in accordance with this agreement, in the ordinary course of their employment, or the written consent of the Company;

(f) not use any Confidential Information to the commercial, financial or competitive disadvantage of the Company or a Related Company; and

(g) not do any act or thing involving the use or disclosure of the Confidential Information which may cause loss or damage to the Company or a Related Company." (emphasis added)

[69] The Confidentiality Agreement also included the following definition for 'confidential information'. It is unclear which particular provision of the definition was relied on by the Employer in relation to the Applicant's 6 November 2024 email. This proposition was put to Mr Cann, who had difficulty linking the below definition to the Applicant's email; this is addressed in the below paragraphs:

"Confidential Information means any information recognised by the general law as capable of protection as confidential to the Company's business including, without limitation:

(a) any information marked as "confidential" or to like effect;

(b) any information the Company tells the Employee is confidential or the Company tells the Employee is to be kept confidential;

(c) any information disclosed to the Employee in circumstances which would, to a reasonable person, indicate that the information is sensitive commercial information or information of a kind which, if disclosed to third parties, could or might cause the Company, or any of its Associated Entities, loss or damage (including damage to reputation);

(d) financial information regarding accounts rendered, income, debts, profits, salaries and wages paid, assets and liabilities and bad debts;

(e) supply and service information regarding goods or services supplied, the name and address of clients and customers to whom goods or services were or are being supplied;

(f) terms of supply or service contracts or particular transactions;

(g) marketing information regarding details about the Company's position in the market place or segments of the market place, the Company's competitors' position in the market place or in segments of the market place, marketing plans and strategies;

(h) personnel information regarding personal or medical histories, compensation, or terms of employment;

(i) information about past, existing or prospective clients, customers or referrers, including their identity, details of past, current or proposed transactions with any of them, or the state of any of their accounts with the Company;

(j) personal information about any of the Company's past, existing or prospective clients, customers or referrers, including their personalities, likes, dislikes and foibles, and special requirements;

(k) strategic information about the Company's business goals and plans including but not limited to target markets, target segments of markets, or plans about premises;

(I) tender information regarding the methods the Company uses to calculate the amounts contained in its tenders, the methods the Company uses to prepare tenders and the information contained in its tenders;

(m) personal identification numbers, passwords, passcodes or similar used in the Company's business to access or operate devices, software or 'cloud' based software services;

(n) procedures, processes, systems or documents relating to the operation of the Company's business that contribute to the sustainable competitive advantages of the business, including any Intellectual Property; and

(o) information confidential to any of the Company's Associated Entities."

[70] In relation to the Applicant's understanding of these company policies, including the confidentiality provisions, the Applicant was asked a series of closed-ended questions in cross-examination. The Applicant agreed in cross-examination to matters relating to the policy provisions. The Union provided submissions, on the Applicant's evidence and her role as a dump truck driver as to what was the Applicant's actual understanding of the policies. This is taken into account, as is Mr Cann's limited understanding of the confidential information definition (which is addressed after these matters below). The questioning in cross-examination that was put to the Applicant with regard to the policies is extracted below:

And if I can please ask you to go to page 84 of the court book? There's a heading there that says, 'Confidentiality', do you see that?‑‑‑Yes.

And when you've signed the acknowledgement you'd read this part of the Code of Conduct, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

And when you read that, you would have understood that you had a requirement to maintain confidentiality and not reveal the confidential information to any person, unless permitted in writing by the company, correct?‑‑‑Mm‑hm.

That you were to take all steps to prevent unauthorised sue or disclosure of confidential information, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

That you would not copy, reproduce or record any confidential information, except as authorised in the ordinary course of your employment engagement, with the consent of MacKellar, correct?‑‑‑Yes.

Rebecca Callow v [2025] FWC 2031

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (488 paragraphs)

Rebecca Callow v [2025] FWC 2031 (15 July 2025)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (4)