Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Beynon [2013] FCA 390

Automotive, Food, Metals, Engineering, Printing and Kindred Industries Union v Beynon [2013] FCA 390

Applications failed because the applicants did not establish that Mr Beynon or Ideal Pty Ltd was 'involved' in the contravention by Forgecast of its redundancy obligations—the necessary association in purpose ('linked in purpose') between Mr Beynon and Mr Dixon as the directing mind of Forgecast was not present, and the actual course of events after appointment of receivers rendered Mr Beynon's intention impossible to carry out. Thus, accessorial liability was not established.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Application and Cross Claim / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Application and all cross-claims dismissed. No order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['redundancy Entitlements' 'civil Remedy Provisions' 'involvement in Contraventions' 'accessorial Liability' 'transitional Industrial Instruments' 'rights of Unions' 'costs in Fair Work Jurisdiction']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law'] ['redundancy Entitlements' 'civil Remedy Provisions' 'involvement in Contraventions' 'accessorial Liability' 'transitional Industrial Instruments' 'rights of Unions' 'costs in Fair Work Jurisdiction']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application and Cross Claim / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether Mr Beynon or Ideal Pty Ltd was 'involved' in Forgecast's contravention of redundancy payment obligations under transitional agreements pursuant to s 550 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth)" 'Whether Mr Dixon shared common intention with Mr Beynon to constitute being linked in purpose' 'Whether the events as unfolded post-appointment demonstrated that the alleged intention could be carried out or not, thus establishing accessorial liability']

Ratio Decidendi

Applications failed because the applicants did not establish that Mr Beynon or Ideal Pty Ltd was 'involved' in the contravention by Forgecast of its redundancy obligations—the necessary association in purpose ('linked in purpose') between Mr Beynon and Mr Dixon as the directing mind of Forgecast was not present, and the actual course of events after appointment of receivers rendered Mr Beynon's intention impossible to carry out. Thus, accessorial liability was not established.

Court Disposition

Application and all cross-claims dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' 'The cross-claim of Ian Lloyd Beynon against Stephen Robert Dixon be dismissed.' 'The cross-claim of Ideal Pty Ltd against Stephen Robert Dixon be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to the costs of the proceeding, or of the cross-claims.']