Contact Us


Hours of Operation
Monday - Friday
8.00am - 5.30pm

Phone
+61 2 92231522

Fax
+61 2 92237646

Email
f.hayden@statechambers.net

Address
Level 36,
52 Marin Place,
Sydney NSW 200

Online Enquiry

* Required fields

Anton Duc

 

Contact Details

Phone: +61 2 9210 1425
Email: anton.duc@statechambers.net

Date of Admission to the Bar

2015

Date of Admission as a Solicitor

2003

Qualifications

  • BBus
  • MBus
  • LLB


 

Practice Overview

Anton was called to the bar in April 2015. He has a broad practice with a particular focus in employment and industrial relations law.

Since being called to the bar, Anton has represented a wide variety of clients from corporations to individuals He has appeared in the Federal Court, Supreme Court of NSW, District Court, Local Court and State and Federal Tribunals, such as the Fair Work Commission and NSW Industrial Relations Commission.

Given his experience over more than a decade, Anton is able to approach and conduct his matters with a strategic focus and having regard to the legal and commercial interests and objectives of the client. He is also able to work flexibly with solicitors and on direct access matters, including in relation to the preparation of pleadings and evidence.

He has also acted in a wide variety of other matters including crime, property, equity and negligence.

Anton has also developed strong professional working relationships with solicitors and clients to provide cost effective, pro-active and well communicated legal advice.

Specific Practice Areas

Employment and industrial law, including unfair dismissals, general protections, discrimination law, restraint of trade.

General law, including equity, corporations and family law.

Full Federal Court – judicial review - Trustee for The MTGI Trust v Johnston [2016] FCAFC 140

Full Bench FWC appeal – costs appeal - The Trustee for The MTGI Trust T/A Macquarie Technology Group International v David Johnston [2015] FWCFB 6168

Full Bench FWC appeal – right of entry dispute - Lifestyle Bakery Pty Ltd v National Union of Workers [2015] FWC 5199

Full Bench FWC appeal – approval of enterprise agreement – BOOT test -  Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees Association v Beechworth Bakery Employee Co Pty Ltd t/a Beechworth Bakery [2017] FWCFB 1664

Fair Work Commission - redundancy - Jose Figueira v Portugal Madeira Sydney Social & Cultural Sports Club Ltd t/as Portugal Madeira Club Ltd [2016] FWC 4041

Fair Work Commission – strike out unfair dismissal claim - Arja Pontinen v Ingleburn Veterinary Emergency Centre Pty Ltd T/A Ingleburn Veterinary Emergency Centre [2016] FWC 3581

Supreme Court NSW – equity – whether funds were a gift - Tjen v Bilic [2017] NSWSC 364

Supreme Court – common law – loan advance – subrogation - AB Developments (Australia) Pty Ltd v El-Sayed [2016] NSWSC 1613

Wehbe v Minister for Home Affairs [2018] HCA 50 (7 November 2018)

Administrative law – Judicial review – Jurisdictional error – Usual requirement that error must be material – When error will be material – Where visa criterion that there is no evidence that plaintiff has given bogus document – Where delegate of Minister for Home Affairs refused visa application because plaintiff provided bogus document – Where plaintiff accepted that document is bogus – Where plaintiff's migration agent made errors in communications with delegate – Whether agent's errors fraudulent – Whether agent's errors material.

Fair Work Ombudsman v Northcoast Security Services Group Pty Ltd & Ors (No.2) [2019] FCCA 1198 (10 May 2019)

INDUSTRIAL LAW – Application for pecuniary penalties against second and third respondents on the ground they were each involved in the first respondent’s contraventions of terms of an award in relation to a number of alleged employees, such contraventions consisting of the failure to pay amounts owing under the award – whether the first respondent was the employer of the alleged employees – the first respondent held to be the employer of the alleged employees – whether second and third respondents knew of the facts that constituted the first respondent’s failure to pay to the employees amounts owing under the award – whether the second and third respondents were aware that an award applied to the employees – second and third respondents each had knowledge of the facts – second and third respondents also had knowledge an award applied to the employees – each of the second and third respondents involved in first respondent’s contraventions of the award – whether Court has power to order compensation to any of the employees in circumstances where the employees are not parties to the proceeding – leave reserved to hear argument on that question.