Federal Court of Australia
Federal Court of Australia
Edgar v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia Services Pty Ltd [2023] FCA 1573 Appeal from: Edgar v Norton Rose Fulbright Australia Services Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamC2G 449
File number: NSD 509 of 2022
Judgment of: RAPER J
Date of judgment: 12 December 2023
Catchwords: INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from a judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – where the primary judge found that the employer's reasons for taking adverse action did not include the fact that the employee had made a complaint – whether the primary judge erred in fact and law in finding that there was only one decision-maker – appeal dismissed
Legislation: Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) ss 340, 340(1), 341, 342, 351, 361, 361(1)
Cases cited: Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union v Clermont Coal Pty Ltd [2015] FCA 1014; 253 IR 166 Gibbs v Palmerston Town Council (unreported, Gray J, 21 December 1987) Ibarra Campoverde v Regional Health Care Group Pty Ltd [2017] FCCA 1502 Monash Health v Singh [2023] FCAFC 166 Wong v National Australia Bank Ltd [2022] FCAFC 155; 318 IR 148 Wood v Lord Mayor, Councillors & Citizens of the City of Melbourne (1979) 41 FLR 1
Division: Fair Work Division
Registry: New South Wales
National Practice Area: Employment and Industrial Relations
Number of paragraphs: 60
Date of last submissions: 27 October 2023
Date of hearing: 12 October 2023
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr S Prince SC with Ms K Edwards
Solicitor for the Appellant: Harmers Workplace Lawyers
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate