Qantas Airways Limited v Australian and International Pilots Association (No 2) [2024] FCA 756

INDUSTRIAL LAW – s 50 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – whether contravention of Qantas Airways Limited Pilots (Long Haul) Enterprise Agreement 2020 (EBA10)(LHEA10) – whether agreement to direct allocation of junior pilots to A380 aircraft was unreasonably withheld by the respondent – whether the applicant/cross-respondent contravened cl 19.1.2 of LHEA10 – claim and cross-claim dismissed.

CONTRACT – general contractual principles – term that a party is not to unreasonably withhold its agreement – relevant principles.

Renae Kumar was led by Ian Neil SC, both appearing for the respondent.

Reasons for judgment can be found here.

Atkins v North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency Ltd [2024] FCA 686

CORPORATIONS – employee alleging her employer (a company) purported to dismiss her from her employment – employee alleging the purported dismissal was not legally effective – whether a resolution of the Board of a company for the termination of the company’s Chief Executive Officer was made in compliance with the company’s Constitution – consequences of non-compliance – whether s 1322(2) of the Corporation Act 2001 (Cth) operated to cure a procedural irregularity – whether substantial injustice would result if the procedural irregularity were so cured

INDUSTRIAL LAW – alleged contraventions of s 340 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – employee alleging her employer took five adverse actions because she exercised or threatened to exercise workplace rights – employer having the onus to prove that the adverse actions were not taken because the employee had exercised or proposed to exercise workplace rights – where members of a Board of directors gave evidence – whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that persons other than the witnesses materially participated or brought about the decisions – where some witness testimony about the reasons for the taking adverse actions could not be accepted in light of objective facts – relevance of temporal coincidence between employee’s exercise of workplace rights and employer’s adverse actions – whether the employer’s evidence established that some directors of a Board had not acted on a report the existence of which may have resulted from the acts or omissions of a person actuated by a prohibited reason – where presumption in s 361 of the Fair Work Act applied by reason of deficiencies in the case presented by the employer

Renae Kumar was led by Mr M Harding SC, both appearing for the Applicant.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

RPS AAP Consulting Pty Ltd v Lamb [2023] FCA 1310

INDUSTRIAL LAW – appeal from orders of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia – general protections application – where the primary judge found that the employer’s reasons for taking adverse action included the fact that the employee had made a complaint – whether the primary judge erred in relying on the subjective views of the employee as to whether she had been the subject of adverse action – whether the reasons were inadequate and/or involved an erroneous factual finding regarding the issue of demotion and being forcibly removed – whether the primary judge erred in finding that the decision-makers’ real reasons for the impugned decision included a prohibited reason and failed to give adequate reasons – whether the primary judge erred by applying a test of reasonable apprehension of bias – whether the primary judge erred by creating and relying on a nexus between Ms Lamb’s complaint and RPS’s response to the proposed study commitments – appeal dismissed.

Renae Kumar was led by Ian Neil SC, both appearing for the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Leach v Burston [2022] FCA 87

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – interlocutory application for strike out and/or summary dismissal of applicant’s Points of Claim (POC) – whether it is reasonably arguable that s 46PO(3) of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) (AHRC Act) does not preclude the applicant from pursuing proceedings in this Court – whether it is reasonably arguable that the Court has jurisdiction to determine whether respondent contravened s 94(1) of the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 (Cth) (SD Act) – whether applicant’s claims have a reasonable prospect of success – whether it is reasonably arguable that “acts, omissions or practices” (s 46PO(3)(b) of AHRC Act) are limited to events constituting alleged sexual harassment/discrimination – whether appropriate to determine s 46PO(3) of the AHRC Act and s 94(1) of the SD Act issues in interlocutory application – where Court satisfied it is reasonably arguable that Court has jurisdiction to hear complaint with regard to s 94 of the SD Act – where claims relating to s 28G(2) of the SD Act do not disclose arguable cause of action – s 28G(2) of the SD Act claims to be summarily dismissed/struck out, but balance of claims in POC are reasonably arguable – application otherwise dismissed.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Maruf v Secretary, NSW Ministry of Health [2022] NSWCATAD 2

ANTI-DISCRIMINATION – Discrimination on the ground of age – Application to amend complaint made at final hearing – Whether to exercise power to amend complaint – Whether respondent discriminated against applicant on the ground of age in determining who should be offered employment - Whether respondent discriminated against applicant on the ground of age in denying him access to transfers or promotions – Whether respondent or employee of respondent victimised applicant.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Hurley v Security & Technology Services (NT) Pty Ltd [2021] FedCFamC2G 181

INDUSTRIAL LAW – FAIR WORK – whether the applicant wrongfully dismissed – whether the first respondent contravened s 44 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – no serious misconduct summary dismissal not justified – contravention of s 44 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) in failing to give notice required under s 117 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – failure to make out serious misconduct within s 123 Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – compensation awarded under s 545 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth) – interest under s 547 of the Fair Work Act 2009 (Cth).

Renae Kumar appeared for the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Yalda v Mshref [2021] NSWSC 624

APPEALS – Damages – Negligence – Vehicle accident – Vicarious liability – Abuse of process – Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1946 (NSW) s 5(1) – Dismissal of statement of claim – Appeal dismissed.

Renae Kumar appeared for the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Smith v Ventia Pty Limited [2021] NSWDC 236

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Preliminary discovery — To identify potential cause of action — reasonable inquiries – claim for privilege

Renae Kumar appeared for the Plaintiff.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Dul v Health Secretary, in respect of Sydney Local Health District [2020] NSWIRComm 1082

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – shift swaps – investigation – whether applicant had verbal approval from Supervisor – whether applicant engaged in a serious form of misconduct for personal gain – application granted.

Renae Kumar represented the Applicant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

Woollahra Municipal Council v Ayman Tawfils [2020] NSWIRComm 1063

EMPLOYMENT AND INDUSTRIAL LAW – Industrial Relations Commission – Jurisdiction – Unfair Dismissal Claim – whether applicant required to provide undertaking not to pursue in future an application for reinstatement under Workers Compensation legislation – whether refusal by applicant to provide undertaking deprives Commission of jurisdiction.

Renae Kumar represented the Respondent.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.

INPEX AUSTRALIA PTY LTD v THE AUSTRALIAN WORKERS' UNION [2020] FWCFB 5321

Ian Neil S.C. and Renae Kumar appeared as counsel for INPEX Australia Pty.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Alghofaili v SAE Institute Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCATAD 215

EQUAL OPPORTUNITY — leave to proceed — principles applying to grant of leave — race discrimination in education — ethno-religious origin — victimisation.

Renae Kumar represented the Respondent.

The reasons for the decision can be found here.

Nguyen v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 128

MIGRATION – decision of Minister, personally exercising the power under s 501BA of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), to set aside revocation decision and to cancel the appellant’s spouse visa – whether Minister’s finding that there was an ongoing likelihood the appellant will re-offend was legally unreasonable – whether the Minister formed the view that he was precluded from inviting the appellant to make submissions or provide further material and thereby misunderstood the operation of s 501BA – Ibrahim v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCAFC 89 applied.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether leave should be granted to rely on an amended notice of appeal.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeal from a single judge of the Court – whether Full Court should exercise its discretion to receive further evidence.

Theresa Baw and Renae Kumar represented the Appellant.

Reasons for the decision can be found here.