Millar v FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1331

Millar v FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1331

The statutory test under s 46PP is whether an interim injunction is appropriate to maintain the status quo or the rights of the parties pending the Commission's process. The appropriate order was to reinstate the applicant's employment on unpaid leave, thus preserving his legal status as an employee and maintaining...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Mathew Millar; Respondent: FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Application for Interim Injunction Under Statutory Human Rights Legislation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Determination
Outcome
Interim injunction granted in the alternative form sought by applicant; applicant reinstated and placed on unpaid leave until conclusion of the Commission complaint process.
Legal Topics
Disability Discrimination, Termination of Employment, Interim Injunction, Drug Testing Policies at Work
Human Rights Industrial Law Disability Discrimination Termination of Employment Interim Injunction Drug Testing Policies at Work

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mathew Millar

Applicant

FQM Australia Nickel Pty Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Interim Injunction Under Statutory Human Rights Legislation / Interlocutory Application Prior to Substantive Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to grant an interim injunction reinstating employment or placing applicant on unpaid leave pending Commission proceedings
  2. 2 Whether employer's refusal to adjust drug testing protocol constitutes unlawful discrimination under Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth)

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory test under s 46PP is whether an interim injunction is appropriate to maintain the status quo or the rights of the parties pending the Commission's process. The appropriate order was to reinstate the applicant's employment on unpaid leave, thus preserving his legal status as an employee and maintaining a level playing field for the Commission process, rather than granting the primary relief of reinstatement to paid duties given unresolved safety concerns about workplace impairment and inadequate evidentiary basis for full return to work.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted in the alternative form sought by applicant; applicant reinstated and placed on unpaid leave until conclusion of the Commission complaint process.

Orders

  • Respondent shall reinstate the applicant's employment and place him on unpaid leave at least until the conclusion of the complaint process being conducted by the Australian Human Rights Commission.
  • Liberty to apply to vary or discharge these orders on reasonable notice.