Federal Court adjusts declaratory relief period in coal mining levy case

Issue was eligibility of 'shotfirer' employees under long service leave law

Federal Court adjusts declaratory relief period in coal mining levy case

In a recent case, Australia’s Federal Court ruled that the relevant “shotfirer” employees ceased to count as “eligible employees” after 28 February 2022 for the purpose of declaring the employer’s failure to pay the respondent levies for a specific period. 

In Orica Australia Pty Ltd v Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation (No 2), [2025] FCAFC 90, the primary judge determined that some of the appellant employer’s “shotfirer” employees were eligible employees as defined by s 4(1) of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 1992 (Cth) since 2013. 

The judge granted declaratory relief in line with that determination and directed the employer to pay the costs of the proceeding to the respondent, the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation. 

On appeal, the employer challenged the judge’s central determination on four grounds and succeeded in two respects. 

Declaratory relief limited

The Federal Court of Australia partly allowed the appeal, limited the declaratory relief the primary judge had granted to a particular period of time, and ordered the parties to bear their own costs of the appeal. 

The court declared that: 

  • The appellant’s employees who performed shotfiring and related services at black coal mines in New South Wales from 1 March 2013 to 28 February 2022 were eligible under s 4(1)(b) of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Administration Act 
  • Within that period, the employer failed to pay the respondent levies – imposed by s 4 of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 1992 (Cth) – on the aforementioned employees’ eligible wages under s 6 of the Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave) Payroll Levy Act 

Regarding the costs of the proceeding before the primary judge, the court saw no reason to interfere with the judge’s cost orders because the appeal’s outcome generally did not impact the respondent’s success at first instance. 

As for the appeal’s costs, the court exercised its discretion to order the parties to bear their own expenses. The court explained that both parties emerged partly victorious: 

  • The appellant successfully prosecuted its preferred construction of the relevant legislation and convinced the court it had no ongoing statutory liability regarding its “shotfirer” employees 
  • The respondent succeeded in defending the liability that the primary judge had identified for those employees for a significant period of time