1
Fair Work Act 2009
s.604 - Appeal of decisions
Kentz (Australia) Pty Ltd
v
Communications, Electrical, Electronic, Energy, Information, Postal,
Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia
(C2016/2713)
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT WATSON
DEPUTY PRESIDENT WELLS
COMMISSIONER CIRKOVIC MELBOURNE, 9 MARCH 2016
Appeal against decision [2016] FWC 669 of Commissioner Bissett at Melbourne on
3 February 2016 in matter number C2015/7983 – s.596 – permission for Appellant and
Respondent to be represented by a lawyer or paid agent – granted.
[1] This decision concerns applications for permission to be represented by Counsel by
the Kentz (Australia) Pty Ltd (the Appellant) and the Communications, Electrical, Electronic,
Energy, Information, Postal, Plumbing and Allied Services Union of Australia (CEPU) (the
Respondent).
[2] The Appeal was listed for hearing subject to directions of Vice President Hatcher of
29 February 2016, which included a requirement that any ‘party that wishes to apply for
permission to be represented at the hearing of the appeal by a lawyer or paid agent shall file in
the Commission and serve on the other party a document, not exceeding one A4 page in
length, which identifies the lawyer or paid agent the subject of the application and the reasons
why such permission should be granted having regard to the grounds in s.596(2) of the Fair
Work Act 2009’ (the Act), by 5.00 p.m. Monday, 7 March 2016. The date for the filing of an
application for permission to be represented was amended by Senior Deputy President
Watson on 7 March 2016 to read 5.00 p.m. Tuesday, 8 March 2016.
[3] On 7 March 2016, solicitors for the Respondent filed an application for permission to
be represented at the hearing of the Appeal by Counsel. On 8 March 2016, solicitors for the
Appellant filed an application for permission to be represented at the hearing of the Appeal by
Counsel.
[4] By correspondence of 26 February 2016, the Respondent, in foreshadowing its
application for permission for Counsel to appear advised, that the Respondent did not oppose
the Appellant being legally represented. By correspondence of 8 March 2016, solicitors for
the Appellant advised that the Appellant consents to the Respondent being legally
represented.
[2016] FWCFB 1501
DECISION
E AUSTRALIA FairWork Commission
[2016] FWCFB 1501
2
[5] In circumstances where the Appeal is to be heard in Melbourne and the Appellant and
its solicitors are based in Perth and solicitors for the Respondent are based in Brisbane, the
Full Bench is of the view that the applications for permission to be represented by Counsel
should be determined in advance of the hearing.
[6] Having regard to the nature and legal complexity of the Appeal, we are satisfied that
representation by Counsel in each case would enable the Appeal to be dealt with more
efficiently. In circumstances where each party would be represented by Counsel no issue of
unfairness to either party arises.
[7] Accordingly, pursuant to s.596 of the Act, we grant permission for the Appellant and
the Respondent to be represented by Counsel.
SENIOR DEPUTY PRESIDENT
Printed by authority of the Commonwealth Government Printer
Price code A, PR577810
