Ramsay v Sunbuild Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 54

Ramsay v Sunbuild Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 54

On the assumption that the applicants complied with all provisions of Division 3 of Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), they were permit holders entitled to enter Sunbuild's worksite and to exercise rights in accordance with Part 3–4 for the purposes of ss 501 and 502(1). The existence of a right of entry under the WHS Act, combined with satisfaction of FWA requirements, suffices; the entitlement or rights need not arise solely under the FWA itself. There is no inconsistency or legislative repugnancy between the FWA and the WHS Act in this context.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Determination of Separate Questions Under R 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011
Outcome
Both separate questions answered in the affirmative, conditional on compliance with Division 3 of Part 3–4 of the FWA by applicants.
Legal Topics
['right of Entry' 'interaction of Fair Work Act and Work Health and Safety Legislation' 'statutory Construction' 'permit Holder Rights' 'occupational Health and Safety']
['industrial Law'] ['right of Entry' 'interaction of Fair Work Act and Work Health and Safety Legislation' 'statutory Construction' 'permit Holder Rights' 'occupational Health and Safety']

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

Civil / Determination of Separate Questions Under R 30.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether applicants were permit holders entitled to enter the site in accordance with Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) within s 501' 'Whether applicants were permit holders exercising rights in accordance with Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) within s 502(1)' 'Whether Fair Work Act provides enforceable rights additional to those of the WHS Act in the context of right of entry for OHS purposes' 'Whether there is inconsistency or repugnancy between the Fair Work Act and the Work Health and Safety (National Uniform Legislation) Act (2011) (NT)']

Ratio Decidendi

On the assumption that the applicants complied with all provisions of Division 3 of Part 3–4 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth), they were permit holders entitled to enter Sunbuild's worksite and to exercise rights in accordance with Part 3–4 for the purposes of ss 501 and 502(1). The existence of a right of entry under the WHS Act, combined with satisfaction of FWA requirements, suffices; the entitlement or rights need not arise solely under the FWA itself. There is no inconsistency or legislative repugnancy between the FWA and the WHS Act in this context.

Court Disposition

Both separate questions answered in the affirmative, conditional on compliance with Division 3 of Part 3–4 of the FWA by applicants.

Orders

  • ['The parties provide a set of orders that give effect to these reasons by 4.00 pm on 14 February 2014.']