Australia updates

Arbitration & ADR

Subpoenas in aid of arbitration
  • Australia
  • 02 August 2018

The Supreme Court of Victoria recently approved the issuance of subpoenas compelling two witnesses to attend before an arbitral tribunal seated in Melbourne and give evidence pursuant to Section 23 of the International Arbitration Act. The application arose out of a long-running dispute concerning the sale of a food business. The court's judgment provides useful guidance on the circumstances in which it will issue subpoenas in aid of arbitration as well as the meaning of Section 23(4) of the act.

No requirement to provide evidence or documents in foreign-seated arbitration
  • Australia
  • 09 November 2017

The Federal Court recently declined an application for leave to issue subpoenas pursuant to Section 23 of the International Arbitration Act 1974 on the basis that Section 23 of the act did not give the court jurisdiction to do so in aid of an arbitration seated outside Australia. While some practitioners will agree with the court's strict interpretation of the act, others – particularly those engaged in international arbitration in Asia-Pacific – may find the decision less satisfactory.

Nothing to get wound up about: Federal Court refers Masters case to arbitration
  • Australia
  • 12 October 2017

In a recent case, the Federal Court stayed the proceedings brought before it and referred the dispute to arbitration, save for the ultimate question of whether a winding-up order against the first defendant should be made. Among other things, the decision illustrates the policy of minimal curial intervention that the Australian courts follow where arbitration is concerned. It also confirms the arbitrability of certain claims under the Corporations Act 2001.


Employment & Benefits

Contributed by Lander & Rogers
Employee termination payments: how long do you have to pay?
  • Australia
  • 12 December 2018

In its four-yearly review of modern awards, the Fair Work Commission has varied nearly all modern awards to require that employers make termination payments within seven calendar days of the effective date of termination. Employers should be aware of the requirements for termination payments, which now appear in the majority of modern awards, and amend their employee exit procedures accordingly.

Christmas party scandal: Fair Work Commission upholds dismissal of glass-throwing employee
  • Australia
  • 05 December 2018

The Fair Work Commission recently made a significant decision on out-of-hours conduct in finding that ALDI had had a valid reason to dismiss an employee for throwing a full glass of beer over the heads of other employees at a work Christmas function. The case emphasises that while employers have a responsibility to maintain appropriate standards of behaviour at work functions where alcohol is present, employees also have an obligation to act within reasonable limits.

What happened to casual employment? A look at WorkPac v Skene
  • Australia
  • 28 November 2018

A recent Full Court of the Federal Court decision has set off alarm bells for employers that engage casual workers. The court found that a 'fly-in, fly-out' worker was not a casual employee despite being employed as one. Accordingly, the employee was entitled to annual leave – a benefit not otherwise available to casuals. This decision raises many significant questions and issues, going to the very nature of what makes casual employment relationships 'casual'.

Sweetheart, let's talk about gendered language
  • Australia
  • 21 November 2018

While using terms like 'sweetheart' and 'babe' in the workplace may come from a friendly place, they may cause female staff to feel undervalued and could land individuals in hot water. It should go without saying that using terms like 'chicks' and 'babes' to refer to female colleagues and employees is inappropriate. But what about 'ladies', 'girls', 'sweetheart' or 'love'?

Genuine redundancy or unfair dismissal – you do the meth
  • Australia
  • 14 November 2018

The Fair Work Commission has found that an HR manager who was made redundant after accusing his managing director of having a meth addiction was not unfairly dismissed. Employers should be aware that, when considering whether a redundancy is genuine, the onus will rest with them to prove that the job is no longer required to be performed by anyone.


Current search

Refine search

Work area