Pine v Doyle [2005] FCA 977

Pine v Doyle [2005] FCA 977

Although the respondent was exercising the power of entry under s 285C as a matter of fact, the applicant failed to establish that he intentionally hindered or obstructed Arnel. Arnel chose to follow the respondent and Gude during the safety inspection; the respondent did not request or require him to do so, did not advert to Arnel being diverted from other duties as a likely consequence of the visit, and believed he was entitled to conduct the inspection under cl 33 of the certified agreement. The required intentional hindrance or obstruction under s 285E(1) was therefore not proved.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 July 2005
Procedural Posture
Industrial Law Application for an Order Under S 285 F(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Imposing a Penalty for Alleged Contravention of S 285 E(1) / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['union Right of Entry' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'civil Penalty Proceedings' 'workplace Safety Inspection' 'certified Agreement Right of Entry']
['industrial Law' 'statutory Interpretation'] ['union Right of Entry' 'intentional Hindrance or Obstruction' 'civil Penalty Proceedings' 'workplace Safety Inspection' 'certified Agreement Right of Entry']

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

Industrial Law Application for an Order Under S 285 F(2) of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (cth) Imposing a Penalty for Alleged Contravention of S 285 E(1) / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondent was exercising powers under s 285C of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 (Cth) during his visit to the site on 18 February 2004.' 'Whether the respondent intentionally hindered or obstructed Arnel and, through him, Villex during that visit.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the respondent was exercising the power of entry under s 285C as a matter of fact, the applicant failed to establish that he intentionally hindered or obstructed Arnel. Arnel chose to follow the respondent and Gude during the safety inspection; the respondent did not request or require him to do so, did not advert to Arnel being diverted from other duties as a likely consequence of the visit, and believed he was entitled to conduct the inspection under cl 33 of the certified agreement. The required intentional hindrance or obstruction under s 285E(1) was therefore not proved.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.']