Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Stuart-Mahoney [2011] FCA 56

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Stuart-Mahoney [2011] FCA 56

The evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities in accordance with s 140(2) Evidence Act, that Deans engaged in contravening conduct in relation to Galea under s 797(3) of the WR Act. Certain orders of the primary judge relating to Galea could not stand. The penalties imposed in respect of Gauci were not manifestly excessive, and no specific sentencing error was found in that regard.

Parties
First Appellant: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union; Second Appellant: Jason Deans; Respondent: Karen Stuart-Mahoney
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Appeal (from Civil Penalty Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Civil Penalty Proceedings, Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Contraventions, Onus of Proof in Industrial Legislation, Evidential Standards in Civil Proceedings, Pecuniary Penalties in Industrial Law
Industrial Law Evidence Civil Penalty Proceedings Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Contraventions Onus of Proof in Industrial Legislation Evidential Standards in Civil Proceedings Pecuniary Penalties in Industrial Law

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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union

First Appellant

Jason Deans

Second Appellant

Karen Stuart-Mahoney

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal (from Civil Penalty Proceedings) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was action or threat of action having prejudicial effect on employment (s 797 of the WR Act)
  2. 2 Whether onus of negativing proscribed reason reversed by s 809 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth)
  3. 3 Whether pleaded allegation sufficiently established by the evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish, on the balance of probabilities in accordance with s 140(2) Evidence Act, that Deans engaged in contravening conduct in relation to Galea under s 797(3) of the WR Act. Certain orders of the primary judge relating to Galea could not stand. The penalties imposed in respect of Gauci were not manifestly excessive, and no specific sentencing error was found in that regard.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Paragraph 2 of the Order of the Federal Magistrates Court of 4 August 2008 and paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of the Order of 27 October 2008 set aside
  • Paragraph 6 of the Order of 27 October 2008 varied by substituting references as specified