SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith

JurisdictionAustralia Federal only
Judgment Date08 June 2021
Neutral Citation[2021] FCA 601
CourtFederal Court
Date08 June 2021
SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith [2021] FCA 601


Federal Court of Australia


SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith [2021] FCA 601

Appeal from:





Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors (No 2) [2019] FCCA 3318 Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors (No 3) [2019] FCCA 3516 Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd & Ors (No 4) [2020] FCCA 61



File number:


QUD 775 of 2019QUD 45 of 2020



Judgment of:

RANGIAH J



Date of judgment:

8 June 2021



Catchwords:

INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal against decision of Federal Circuit Court of Australia – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – where employer found to have taken adverse action under s 340 – where employer’s four directors and related company found accessorily liable – whether employee made “complaints or inquiries” under s 341(1)(c)(ii) – whether “complaints or inquiries” a substantial and operative reason for dismissal – where two of four directors gave evidence – challenge to adverse credibility finding based on misapplication of Jones v Dunkel inference – no substantial miscarriage of justice – no retrial – whether penalties manifestly excessive – reduction in penalties against employer and two directors – penalties against related company and two directors set aside – grounds of appeal upheld in part


INDUSTRIAL LAW – penalties – where declarations made that employer failed to pay out annual leave entitlements within a reasonable time under ss 44 and 90(2) – where related company and four directors found accessorily liable – whether penalties manifestly excessive – reduction in penalties against employer and one director – penalties against related company and three directors set aside – grounds of appeal upheld in part


COMPENSATION – quantum – reduction in economic loss to account for vicissitudes – grounds of appeal upheld in part


COSTS – application for extension of time – extension granted – application for leave to appeal against costs orders under s 570 – leave granted – costs orders set aside – no costs – ground of appeal upheld



Legislation:

Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 3, 44, 90, 130, 340, 341, 342, 343, 346, 351, 360, 361, 550, 570

Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 140

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) s 28(1)

Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) r 25.01(1)

Work Health and Safety Act 2011 (Qld) s 19

Workers Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 119A



Cases cited:

ASIC v Hellicar (2012) 247 CLR 345

BHP Coal Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2013) 219 FCR 245

Blatch v Archer (1774) 1 Cowp 64 at 65, 98 ER 969

Board of Bendigo Regional Institute of Technical and Further Education v Barclay (2012) 248 CLR 500

Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v BHP Coal Pty Ltd [2017] FCAFC 50

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clermont Coal Pty Ltd (2015) 253 IR 166; [2015] FCA 1014

Conway v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 203

Cummins South Pacific Pty Ltd v Keenan (2020) 302 IR 400; [2020] FCAFC 204

Elliott v Kodak Australasia Pty Ltd (2001) 129 IR 251; [2001] FCA 1804

Fair Work Ombudsman v South Jin Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1456

HML v The Queen (2008) 235 CLR 334

Kuhl v Zurich Financial Services Australia Ltd (2011) 243 CLR 361

National Tertiary Education Union v Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (2013) 234 IR 139; [2013] FCA 451

PIA Mortgage Services Pty Ltd v King (2020) 274 FCR 225

Port Kembla Coal Terminal Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union (2016) 248 FCR 18

R v Darling Island Stevedoring and Lighterage Co Ltd; Ex parte Halliday and Sullivan (1938) 60 CLR 601

Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) (2014) 242 IR 1; [2014] FCA 271

Smith v SBP Employment Solutions (No 2) [2019] FCCA 3318

Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd (No 3) [2019] FCCA 3516

Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd (No 4) [2020] FCCA 61

Todorovic v Waller (1981) 150 CLR 402

Weiss v The Queen (2005) 224 CLR 300

Windoval Pty Ltd v Donnelly (2014) 226 FCR 89



Division:

Fair Work Division



Registry:

Queensland



National Practice Area:

Employment and Industrial Relations



Number of paragraphs:

215



Date of last submissions:

2 June 2021 (Respondent)



Date of hearing:

9 November 2020



Counsel for the Appellants:

Mr C Murdoch QC with Mr S Mackie



Solicitor for the Appellants:

Carter Newell Lawyers



Counsel for the Respondent:

Dr R Haddrick with Mr A Hartnett



Solicitor for the Respondent:

FCB Workplace Law


ORDERS


QUD 775 of 2019

QUD 45 of 2020

BETWEEN:

SBP EMPLOYMENT SOLUTIONS PTY LTD

First Appellant


SBP AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

Second Appellant


MAX BURNS (and others named in the Schedule)

Third Appellant


AND:

NICHOLAS SMITH

Respondent



order made by:

RANGIAH J

DATE OF ORDER:

8 JUNE 2021



THE COURT ORDERS THAT:


  1. The parties agree upon and provide to the Court draft orders reflecting the reasons for judgment by 4.30 pm on 15 June 2021.



Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

The Parties

[7]

The Evidence

[14]

The Liability and Penalty Decision

[37]

The Compensation Decision

[57]

The Costs Decision

[60]

The Legislation

[63]

Ground 1: Appeal against findings of contravention of s 340 of the FWA

[70]

Ground 1(a): Whether the primary judge erred in the application of Jones v Dunkel

[70]

Whether the error should result in a retrial

[90]

Ground 1(b): Whether the primary judge erred in finding that “complaints or inquiries” had been made

[116]

Grounds 1(c) and (d): Whether the primary judge erred in determining reasons for the dismissal

[151]

Grounds 2 and 3(e): Appeal against penalties

[158]

Whether Employment Solutions’ penalty for contravention of s 44 of the FWA was manifestly excessive

[158]

Whether the remainder of the penalties were manifestly excessive

[171]

Ground 3: Appeal against orders based on findings of accessorial liability

[177]

Grounds 5 and 6: Appeal against the Compensation Decision

[193]

Appeal against the Costs Decision

[205]

Summary

[214]


RANGIAH J:

  1. The appellants appeal against judgments of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia in Smith v SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd (No 2) [2019] FCCA 3318 (the Liability and Penalty...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
3 cases
  • Alam v National Australia Bank Limited
    • Australia
    • Full Federal Court (Australia)
    • 8 October 2021
    ...Pty Ltd v King [2020] FCAFC 15; (2020) 274 FCR 225 Salama v Sydney Trains [2021] FCA 251 SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith [2021] FCA 601 Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) [2014] FCA 271, (2014) 242 IR 1 Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd [2014] FCAFC 167; (2014) 242 IR 1......
  • Messenger v Commonwealth of Australia (Represented by the Department of Finance)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 10 June 2022
    ...WASC 377 Sabapathy v Jetstar Airways [2021] FCAFC 25 Salama v Sydney Trains [2021] FCA 251 SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith [2021] FCA 601 Sent v Primelife Corporation Ltd [2006] VSC 445 Serventi v John Holland Group Pty Ltd [2006] FCA 1049 Shea v TRUenergy Services Pty Ltd (No 6) (......
  • SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith (No 2)
    • Australia
    • Federal Court
    • 13 August 2021
    ...Services Pty Ltd (No 3) [2017] FCA 810 Melbourne Stadiums Ltd v Sautner (2015) 229 FCR 221 SBP Employment Solutions Pty Ltd v Smith [2021] FCA 601 Shea v EnergyAustralia Services Pty Ltd (No 2) [2015] FCAFC 14 Division: Fair Work Division Registry: Queensland National Practice Area: e) Thir......