Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Summary of Findings: 4-P Model (Principles (Common unifying ideas, threads…
Summary of Findings: 4-P Model
Principles
Common unifying ideas, threads or concepts that link similar areas of law
The major theme for the majority, was that of construction. That is, the way in which the relevant sections of the FWA applied to the employee's leave entitlements.
It was harder to identify overt evidence of "practices" in this judgement on either side (compared to the other Ps). It was evident that there was an overarching theme of legislative construction that shone through my analysis of the other Ps.
Siopis J was also largely concerned with the construction of the legislative provisions.
#
Precedents
All courts follow established common law precedents
The majority judgement disagreed with the CFMEU's definition of "paid annual leave"
At varying other points in the respective judgements each judge relied on different common law precedent. There discussion of this case, and their differing views, was the most pertinent example of their different common law interpretation
The dissenting judgement adopted the submission by the CFMEU on the definition of "paid annual leave"
#
Policies
Consequential based reasoning that judges use to meet a socio-economic objective
The majority judgement dealt with the policy implications that would result if their decision favoured either one of the parties.
This judgement was a good example of a majority and dissenting opinion on policy implications. The dissenting opinion relied relatively heavily on perceived policy implications whereas the majority were more reliant on the application of the law. Whilst outside the scope of this analysis, it does speak a bit to
judicial activism
on behalf of Siopis J.
The dissenting judge took the position that the policy implications would be to great if he were to decide in favour of the respondent.
#
Practices
Judges use different legal practices to come to a decision
In coming to the conclusion about the "construction" of the relevant legislative provision, the majority relied on statutory interpretation.
Both decisions relied on statutory interpretation. The difference of opinion was influenced by two other Ps - policies and precedents. The process was largely the same, however, each judge was influenced differently by these other factors.
The dissenting judgment of Siopis J was also heavily reliant on statutory interpretation.
#