Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd [2018] FCA 1065

Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association v Qantas Airways Ltd [2018] FCA 1065

The applicant's Entry Notice specified adequate particulars for suspected contravention of clause 60 but not clause 47. While the permit holder subjectively suspected contraventions of both clauses, only the suspicion regarding clause 60 was objectively reasonable. The request for access to documents did not differentiate, and not all documents were directly relevant to a reasonably held suspicion; therefore, the right to require production was not lawfully exercised under s 482(1)(c).

Parties
Applicant: Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association; First Respondent: Qantas Airways Limited; Second Respondent: Christopher Tobin; Third Respondent: Nicholas Saunders
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 July 2018
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Proceeding dismissed
Legal Topics
Right of Entry, Enterprise Agreement, Consultation Requirements, Leave Entitlements, Access to Documents
Industrial Law Employment Law Right of Entry Enterprise Agreement Consultation Requirements Leave Entitlements Access to Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Australian Licenced Aircraft Engineers Association

Applicant

Qantas Airways Limited

First Respondent

Christopher Tobin

Second Respondent

Nicholas Saunders

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permit holder lawfully exercised right of entry under the Fair Work Act
  2. 2 Whether Entry Notice complied with statutory requirements for particulars and declaration
  3. 3 Whether permit holder had right to access records or documents

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's Entry Notice specified adequate particulars for suspected contravention of clause 60 but not clause 47. While the permit holder subjectively suspected contraventions of both clauses, only the suspicion regarding clause 60 was objectively reasonable. The request for access to documents did not differentiate, and not all documents were directly relevant to a reasonably held suspicion; therefore, the right to require production was not lawfully exercised under s 482(1)(c).

Court Disposition

Proceeding dismissed

Orders

  • The Amended Originating Application and the Second Further Amended Statement of Claim are dismissed.
  • The proceeding is dismissed.