Thiess Pty Ltd v Sheehan [2020] FCAFC 198

Thiess Pty Ltd v Sheehan [2020] FCAFC 198

Clause 16(9) of the Wheatstone Project Agreement fixes the start and finish of Project Working Hours, and entitles employees to remuneration for all time up to the inside of the access gates, including travel from the crib hut. No error was found in the primary judge’s interpretation. There were no grounds for apprehended bias due to the judge’s prior involvement, as the prior proceedings did not bear on the matters disputed in the current appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Determination
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['enterprise Agreement Interpretation' 'project Working Hours' 'remuneration Entitlements' 'recusal and Bias']
['industrial Law' 'employment Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['enterprise Agreement Interpretation' 'project Working Hours' 'remuneration Entitlements' 'recusal and Bias']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal / Appeal Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether clause 16(9) of the Wheatstone Project Agreement entitles employees to be paid for time spent travelling within the site from the crib hut to the access gate' 'Whether clause 16(9) is a scheduling provision or also fixes paid entitlements' "Whether judge's prior professional relationship constitutes apprehended bias"]

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 16(9) of the Wheatstone Project Agreement fixes the start and finish of Project Working Hours, and entitles employees to remuneration for all time up to the inside of the access gates, including travel from the crib hut. No error was found in the primary judge’s interpretation. There were no grounds for apprehended bias due to the judge’s prior involvement, as the prior proceedings did not bear on the matters disputed in the current appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for leave to appeal be granted.' 'The appeal be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']