Australian Postal Corporation v D'Rozario [2014] FCAFC 89

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Australian Postal Corporation v D'Rozario [2014] FCAFC 89 Citation: Australian Postal Corporation v D'Rozario [2014] FCAFC 89

Appeal from: Fair Work Commission: C2011/6623; and Vice President Lawler of the Fair Work Commission: C2011/6623

Parties: AUSTRALIAN POSTAL CORPORATION v SHANE D'ROZARIO, KRIS CLARKE, MICHAEL BRAMBLEBY and FAIR WORK COMMISSION

File number: VID 1082 of 2013

Judges: BESANKO, JESSUP AND BROMBERG JJ

Date of judgment: 23 July 2014

Corrigenda: 30 October 2014

Catchwords: ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – jurisdictional error – application to quash decision and orders of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission – where first and second respondents were granted permission to appeal to Full Bench against decision of Commissioner at first instance with respect to alleged unfair dismissal – where Full Bench must not grant permission to appeal unless it is satisfied that it is in the public interest to do so – whether there was no evidence to support the decision that it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal to the first and second respondents – difference between a requirement for the existence of a relevant fact, or a requirement for the decision-maker to hold an opinion, state of satisfaction or belief as to the existence of a relevant fact, as a precondition to the exercise of power –– whether a finding of fact made to satisfy a precondition to the exercise of power in the absence of evidence may be jurisdictional error – meaning of "evidence" with respect to decision of the Fair Work Commission – whether the decision to grant permission to appeal was irrational, illogical or not based on findings or inferences of fact supported by logical grounds – whether an irrational or illogical decision with respect to a precondition to the exercise of power may be jurisdictional error – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 400, 590, 604, 613. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – jurisdictional error – application to quash decision and orders of the Full Bench of the Fair Work Commission – where third respondent was granted permission to appeal to Full Bench against decision of Commissioner at first instance with respect to appropriate remedy for unfair dismissal – where Full Bench must not grant permission to appeal unless it considers that it is in the public interest to do so – whether Full Bench granted permission to third respondent to appeal without considering whether it was in the public interest to do so – whether the Full Bench failed to identify any error in the reasons of the Commissioner at first instance – Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 400, 604, 613. Held: The Full Bench did not err in granting permission to appeal to the first and second respondents. Application dismissed insofar as it relates to the first and second respondents. With respect to the third respondent, the Full Bench failed to consider whether it was in the public interest to grant permission to appeal. Application allowed, and decision and orders of the Full Bench quashed, insofar as they each relate to the third respondent.