The Federal Court dismissed an application for interlocutory injunction by a director/executive chairman seeking to restrain his removal, holding that Part 9.4AAA of the Corporations Act (whistleblower protections) is not a 'workplace law' under s 12 of the Fair Work Act, following Bowd. While the Court found a prima facie case that some post-commencement conduct constituted adverse action under s 340(1)(a)(ii) (because the applicant had exercised a workplace right by commencing Fair Work Act proceedings), and a prima facie case of victimisation under s 1317AC(1) of the Corporations Act, the interlocutory injunction was refused because the terms of the relief sought went well beyond remedying the alleged contraventions and would restrain the respondents from exercising contractual and other rights unrelated to the claims. On the contested question of s 361(2) of the Fair Work Act, the Court held that while the presumption in s 361(1) cannot be applied to establish a prima facie case on an interlocutory application, once a serious question is established on the evidence, the Court may have regard to the availability of the presumption at trial in assessing the apparent strength of the case.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 1 later case that cites this judgment.